How Can Cybersquatters Be Evicted, Cheaply?

wmshub asks: "Slashdot has covered stories where big mean companies threw poor little people off of web sites with names too close to that of the company. But what about when you are the company and the cybersquatter isn't even using the name? I have a small (ok, basically just me) company. The web site that exactly matches my company name has been registered since 2001, which is before I legally registered my company name but after I started doing business. Despite being registered for 4 years, the site is still nothing but a pile of banner ads - not even a hint as to why they want that particular name for their site. I contacted the owner, but they are not interested in selling (at any price, they said). If I read the ICANN guidelines correctly, domain name owners who have 'no legitimate claim for the name' can be evicted by people who do, so I think I should be able to demand they hand the name over. Has anybody ever tried this, or heard of a case where somebody with very limited funds (ie, not enough money to hire a lawyer) has been able to evict a squatter? Or do you always have to hire a lawyer and pay thousands in court fees to make this happen?"

Comments

Taking candy from strangers

[KingPrad]

domain name owners who have 'no legitimate claim for the name' can be evicted by people who do

And your legitimate claim is that you want it? That you want it really really bad? I know domain names are very important, but if you have no claim to it other than desire and the owner isn't cybersquatting (even if he is totally wasting it), why do you think you should get it?

I can see good arguments for both sides of this, but using legal pressure to take things away from their owners is disgusting to me. I hate it when the government does it and when people or companies do it. Ownership is [should be] ownership, whether some stranger likes it or not. Taking it is theft, whether you take it physically or through legal manipulation.

I'm waiting for this to happen

[Solder Fumes]

My domain name is based on my own name, but it also happens to be the exact same name as a Taiwanese company. They currently use the ".com.tw" variant. However, I often get emails to the company, even though my catchall address is blackholed. What's more, I have no visible index page...just a blank white emptiness. But I do use the domain heavily for my own email, my own file storage and web-based services for my family and others. If anyone tried to prove I was cybersquatting, I'm sure that I could prove otherwise. But it would suck to lose the email addresses that I promised to myself and my users would be there in perpetuity regardless of ISP changes.

Re:There is more to the net than the web

[Matt Perry]

I understand your argument, but do you REALLY believe what you're saying?

Yep, 100%. Remember the domain name I was talking about in my original post? I get several offers a year to buy it. I tell people the same thing: "It's in use and it's not for sale." It's not my problem if they think it looks like it's not being used.

He's been squatted, plain and simple.

Yet he's unwilling to sell at any price, according to the submitter. There's no profit motive. Why "squat" on the domain? Maybe he's using it. D'ya think?!

He would be able to help us out if he'd just do a dump of all of the DNS entries for that zone.

You mean provide you with security information for no reason? There's a reason why you can restrict who can initiate zone transfers. When you make that request why not ask him to enable fingerd and provide a list of usernames from /etc/passwd as well.

Bottom line is that he has nothing to prove. He doesn't want to sell. It's his domain. He's doing nothing wrong. He registered the domain before the submitter. End of story.

The real lesson to be learned here is that if you are going to start a company then in addition to investigating company names with the Secretary of State you should also think about a web presence and investigate what domain names are available. A person reading Slashdot should have known that much back in 2001. It's the submitters fault for not getting the domain name he wanted. If he's unhappy about that then he might want to talk to a lawyer that specializes in this type of law rather than submit a question to Slashdot. A lawyer can tell him if he thinks he has a case and let him know how much it would cost to retain him for the job.

Next Ask Slashdot, please.