Slashdot Mirror


Unsolicited Offer For My Personal Domain Name?

Batzerto writes "Last Friday I received an unsolicited email offer for my domain — click the link below for the message. Their company name matches my domain, but with a country-specific top level domain (.NL in this case). They do seem to be legitimately using the domain in their country. As for my usage, the domain is my last name(.COM) and I'm only really using it for email. I'm not really that attached to it other than the hassle of changing email addresses. There are other flavors of the domain available (.US for example) that would suit my purposes just fine. So, Slashdot veterans, I ask you, what should I do? I'm leery of making an offer and falling into someone's legal trap. I wouldn't mind getting a chunk of cash out of the deal though."


From: ---
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:56 AM
To: ---
Subject: sell your domain ?

Dear Sir,

For my company I need the domain --- .
Is it possible to sell your domain to me?

Best Regards
N. de Robles

542 comments

  1. Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is capitalism.

    Google bomb your url with their company name by creating a Slashdot user account with their name and submit thousands of stories each week with your url in the homepage. You can also drop the company's name with an href to your url in CNN comments and on comments for popular blogs to get your pagerank up.

    Then inform them that your Search Engine Optimization Chief just caused your URL to be at the top of Google's result list.

    If they fail to triple their offer, begin redirecting to goatse. You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by tempestdata · · Score: 0

      haha.. that's evil.

      And I thought I was being horrid when I was going to suggest to him that he set up a link farm landing page.

      I like your idea better

      --
      - Tempestdata
    2. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe the quote that best describes your views on life is "This is why we can't have nice people."

      The offer does seem legitimate, though. Go for it, submitter!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

      Or they bring out the lawyers and everybody loses. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a trademark issue. If you ask for money for a domain name that includes their trademark, then they have a legal case against you for domain squatting.

      In the end, like most ask slashdot posts, the submitter should go to a lawyer and ask their opinion. The company's offering to buy it, so I don't see any reason that the submitter shouldn't be able to legally ask what price they're willing to pay, but I don't know the particulars of the law.

    5. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by iMaple · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, you can just write them a polite email informing that you use the domain and it is not up for sale. However if they really need the domain, and are willing to recompensate you for the hassle of moving to another domain, you would be willing to help them out.

      That way they can make an offer, are you get into no legal trouble (You clearly show that you do not wish to sell the domain, unless it is to help them out).

    6. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a trademark issue.

      RTFA. The site's name is the author's last name, so I doubt anyone can accuse him of "trademark infringement".

    8. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. The submitter has a legitimate cause to use this domain name. He's also free to sell it to anyone at whatever price he/she wishes.

      It's mikerowsoft.com all over again.

    9. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what happened to nissan.com.

      tmegapscm

    10. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly... when I think of such problems I always imagine a bespectacled political activist with messed up hair, staring intently at the screen of his computer. As the camera pans around to see what is on the screen you see him trying to register his name as a domain ....

      www.asshole.com

    11. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by gosand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I would certainly mention that you own it because it is your name. That would give them the reason why you have it, and that you aren't trying to squat on it.

      Everyone's talking about lawyers and whatnot... what happened to just being polite? I guess lawyers have ruined that too.

      On that note, I wonder if it would hurt your case that you posted the question to Slashdot? It's not hard to figure out the site name as others have posted it already, which would turn up a search result... you get the picture.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    12. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by idontgno · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another installment in the ongoing saga, "Why no one should ever, ever, ever Ask Slashdot".

      BTW, there is no URL. The domain in question is email only. So there's nothing to SEO. Kthxbye.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      That's actually mikerowesoft.com

    14. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a trademark issue. If you ask for money for a domain name that includes their trademark, then they have a legal case against you for domain squatting.

      The seller has a right in his last name doesn't he? And he is using it for personal email... then it isn't squatting. You don't need to see a lawyer. Make some money.

    15. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 0

      Fuuuuck... O_O
      You know what you're talking about.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    16. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, and the company should immediately stop using the name in the .NL TLD, because it is quite likely the poster had a legitimate claim on it going back hundreds of years, along with all variations on the theme for the way the name has been represented in written records as language evolved.

      Some years back, a national phone company wanted our company's domain, because it matched their stock ticker. We told them $25,000 buys it. Their stock was delisted (for falling below $1 for too long) before they came up with any cash, however, so we still have it!

    17. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by ArTourter · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is an exception to this which is valid in this case. The trademark in question (if it is a trademark, as the submission is not explicit here), is the last name of the person owning the domain. In this case, the last name should take precedence over the trademark unless it was registered "in bad faith".

      It appears that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to be identified by his surname, in line therefore with the provision of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.[...]The use of one's own surname in a domain name corresponds to a legitimate customary practice and is, as a rule, sufficient evidence of a legitimate right or interest in the domain name. The scope of the Policy is limited to cybersquatting. Trademark owners shall not be allowed to use the Policy to dispossess summarily a third party of a domain name reflecting his or her surname (G.A. Modefine S.A. v. A. R. Mani, WIPO Case No.D2001-0537).

    18. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      But would his request for monetary compensation fall under their trademark? It is his last name after all. I wonder how that one would play out in court.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    19. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by QuasiEvil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everyone's talking about lawyers and whatnot... what happened to just being polite? I guess lawyers have ruined that too.

      Actually, I think you've hit on something there. If you go in with the intent of having a low-key, civil discussion, often times things you would say in the course of those discussions may damage your case if things escalate.

      In your case, I'd state that you own it because it is your name, and have used it for X number of years to provide services X, Y, and Z for yourself. That should help establish the legitimacy of your ownership, and may (IANAL) protect you against any trademark issues. Given that, you'd obviously be losing something of value and have a transition cost, and then invite them make a reasonable offer.

    20. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Everyone's talking about lawyers and whatnot... what happened to just being polite? I guess lawyers have ruined that too.

      Really, it's the law that's ruined it all. Legal bickering based on imprecise wording has effectively created an entire industry of lawyers.

      Of course, getting too precise in the wording could have the same effect, as people need lawyers just to sort out what the law is actually saying. But at least we wouldn't have to worry about the law being interpreted differently based upon the judge you happen to get.

      And more to the point of your post, if he's polite and the other party pulls out the big guns (a lawyer), it could all be over. Things that he says could be used against him in court, making him look like a squatter. It's kinda like a real life prisoner's dilemma.

    21. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      Screw that. Zerba.nl is nothing but flash. Do the web a favor and never sell to them.

      --
      John
    22. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I guess lawyers have ruined that too.

      This is kind of a dumbshit thing to say, friend.

      Our society is based on the Rule of Law. To a very significant extent, lawyers are what keeps the engine of liberty and justice running.

      IANAL, and there are none in my family. The only time I've really had the need for one (thankfully) is when I bought my house and when I incorporated my business and my 501c3.

      But if your life ever goes to shit because some force beyond your control decides to fuck with you in an unfair manner, believe me, it's not a programmer you want to call. And when some authoritarian little prick in power decides that he wants to be able to listen in on your phone calls and limit your ability to speak your mind, it's the lawyers from places like the EFF and ACLU that suit up and go into battle on our behalf.

      When Shakespeare wrote "first kill all the lawyers"* his ire was somewhat misdirected. But then, I guess they didn't have Republicans back then.

      *oft-misunderstood quotation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by rfc1394 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a trademark issue. If you ask for money for a domain name that includes their trademark, then they have a legal case against you for domain squatting.

      Not if they came to him first. And not if his name is the same as theirs. I can open a store called "Paul Robinson's Department Store" and the currently existing Robinson's Department Store (actually J.W. Robinson or Robinson-May depending on what part of the U.S. they're in) chain has no grounds to stop me (especially if I included the note "Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co." on the entrance door of my store); one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business.

      Further, they would have to argue that they are well known in the United States and also that he has no legitimate use for the domain. As I just pointed out, one always has a legitimate use of one's own name.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    24. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The seller has a right in his last name doesn't he?

      No. When a big corporation is involved, you have the right to take it up the ass and then say "thank you" afterward. That's the extent of your "rights". After all, this is a free country, which means you are free of all dignity, privacy, and control over your life.

      Haven't you been paying attention?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their trademark does not mean he forfeits the right to his own last name. However, Nissan Motors versus Nissan Computers shows that some jackass can try and sue you anyway.

      They have started the conversation, which is in your favor. You did not approach them with an offer to sell. Safest response is no response at all. You don't have to answer them. Second safest, is "Thanks, but no thanks."

      If you are at all interested in selling, I'd tell them "I am using the domain because it is my last name. I currently have no plans to sell it, but I suppose you could make an offer and change my mind." That's the safe answer.

      Giving them a price does not constitute cybersquatting, it can look bad in an ICAAN dispute, but only if you aren't using it (e.g. you have a link farm there or a 404), and your asking price is obscene. Even then, they could lose such a dispute.

      I worked at a company that lost an ICAAN domain dispute to a textbook domain squatter despite having a registered trademark *and* years of prior use of the domain. The squatter even took down their IIS error page and created a fake website that looked like ours. It was a patent threat to dilute our brand in order to extort even more money from their already grossly inflated price. Which they raised twice during attempted negotiation. So ICAAN, at least, sucks hard enough for them to lose, even if their claim were to have merit. Thanks ICAAN for soaking us for $10k!!!

      A trademark dispute, is a longer and even more expensive process, and would have to prove market confusion along with intent to defraud/defame. You've done neither. Keep the domain, or set a fair price (fair meaning based on its value to you, not what you think it's worth to them).

      The good news is, disputes are legally expensive, and the process is borked. So if they want it bad enough and could afford to try and sue you off of it, they can afford to pay you a reasonable fee.

    26. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      First... check with a lawyer.. find out exactly what youre stepping in. Then call ,dont email, and find out what they want.. Ask open questions "what do you propose" vs "can I have 5000 to sell you your trademark name" Ok, then add in those silly things that will reduce your hassle... Have them reserve your email address and forward it at your choosing for 10 years. this will add hassle to their IT guys... they'll accept in a heartbeat Storm

    27. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you use it for email, you could possibly request that they forward mail to your username for a certain period of time, as part of the sale agreement.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    28. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Informative

      And I would certainly mention that you own it because it is your name.

      That didn't work too well for Mike Rowe, of Mike Rowe Software. It was genuinely his name, but a certain agressive trademark defender made him give up his domain. (Ref:JFGI)

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    29. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Not really. Mike Rowe could have chosen "mikerowesoftware" or some other variant. His domain name contained a word completely unrelated to his name. This question gives me the impression that this guys last name happens to be the same as that of a company in a country, or at least their website.

    30. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by fatphil · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jeebus. Never volunteer to be a moderator for anything. If you don't suspect an approach from someone who apparently has no knowledge at all about what he's referring to asbeing from a robot, then you'll be getting robospam from here until eternity. The idiots didn't make any mention at all by name of what they were interested in. That implies to me that they were simply robots. "Legitimate" my arse.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    31. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Shakespeare wrote "first kill all the lawyers"* his ire was somewhat misdirected.

      You know it was Jack Cade, the villian of the piece, that said this right? In a bit of exposition establishing him as a braggart and buffoon? Is attributing to authors quotes from their villians out of context really a good practice?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... named after its founder and current president, Mr. Uzi Nissan ...

      hrmmm... a Japanese-Jew--now there's a mixed ethnicity you don't see everyday.

    33. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really? The Indiana Canine Assistant & Adolescent Network did all that to your company? You should have taken your dispute to ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) instead...

    34. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by elgatozorbas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you can just write them a polite email informing that you use the domain and it is not up for sale. However if they really need the domain, and are willing to recompensate you for the hassle of moving to another domain, you would be willing to help them out.

      "It's not for sale, except if you offer me big $$$". What does that make you? Not respectable, I would say. Nothing against selling the name in itself, but don't play childish games (the only reason for which is fear of legal trouble, apparently).

      Only in the US could such a simple situation (one party wants to buy, the other wants to sell) be complicated by the fear of losing a lawsuit.
      (I know, say something bad about the US of A and be modded down, so be it.)

    35. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

      Or they bring out the lawyers and everybody loses. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

      I think this link is more informative about the nissan.com issue.

      --
      $ make available
    36. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by hedwards · · Score: 1

      This is a trademark issue. If you ask for money for a domain name that includes their trademark, then they have a legal case against you for domain squatting.

      That's doubtful, you can't trademark names of people. They might want people to think that, but a birth certificate is going to trump any infringement claims they might have.

      They might try to suggest that it's typo squatting, but they would have to demonstrate that it wasn't being used for purposes other than catching typos and that the site's name was infringing upon their trademark. Good luck with that.

    37. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      men don't change their names when they get married [snip]

      I'm too young to get married and prove you wrong, you insensitive clod!

      --
      $ make available
    38. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Scratch that. I didn't notice the censorship.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    39. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by zoward · · Score: 0

      Opps! Posting to get rid of an accidental moderation on this comment. I found it insightful, but Slashdot's new "choose and lose" moderation system decided I'd chosen Flamebait with no way (that I could see) to retract it.

      I'm surprised I got this far down the thread before someone (sanely) suggested the posting individual contact a lawyer.

      --
      "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
    40. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by erica_ann · · Score: 1

      Or, you could set it to a money making parking page until they give you the best offer. So in the meantime you are making money off it.

    41. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "men don't change their names when they get married"

      Usually that is correct in the US (and likely most of the rest of the western world), however, men /can/ change their names when they get married, it's usually a bit of a hassle, it depends on the state, go look it up.

    42. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by PieterBr · · Score: 1

      Zerba's address is at the Prinsengracht in Amsterdam. That's a very very expensive location.

    43. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jeebus. Never hit 'Submit' until you know you have a handle on the situation! If you don't read all the necessary information properly and then mouth off at someone for being an asshat, you'll actually end up making yourself look silly. I almost did it earlier :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    44. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a good thing he didn't start an argument with the guys who make Uzis. Though getting shot might be a better way to go than being run over.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah, his post was good up until the last sentence. Bringing the republican/democrat crap into it does nothing but rile people up. I'd probably better stop commenting on people whining about political alignment or I'll become to bigotry what twitter is to MS.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    46. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      also, gunshot wounds make you look cool. tire marks don't have the same effect.

    47. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 1

      What happens if you legally change your name to something like Burger King? Hehe.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    48. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 1

      ICANN should really sue ICAAN for having a similar domain name

      --
      which is totally what she said
    49. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by somersault · · Score: 1

      what if there were spikes in the tyres?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    50. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Zordak · · Score: 3, Informative

      And not if his name is the same as theirs. I can open a store called "Paul Robinson's Department Store" and the currently existing Robinson's Department Store (actually J.W. Robinson or Robinson-May depending on what part of the U.S. they're in) chain has no grounds to stop me (especially if I included the note "Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co." on the entrance door of my store); one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business

      This is not true. If you use a name that is confusingly similar to another's trademark, the fact that it is your own name does not make it okay. The whole point of trademark is to enable consumer's to identify the source of goods and services based on a known mark. If everybody with the last name of McDonald was able to open a burger joint called "McDonald's," that purpose would be frustrated. Consumers would be confused because they wouldn't know if this McDonald's was going to sell them a low-quality slapped-together microwaved piece of McCrap, or if this one happened to be some mom-and-pop knockoff instead.

      As for the domain name, if it's not that important, sell it. If they make a legitimate offer (like "We will buy your domain for $X") and you accept it, you have a contract. They can't then go to a court and say, "Look, he's trying to fleece us." (But that's not legal advice. Hire a lawyer)

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    51. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Everyone's talking about lawyers and whatnot... what happened to just being polite? I guess lawyers have ruined that too.

      Wow, now we're getting blamed for stuff we're not even involved in? The submitter never mentioned lawyers at all.

    52. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, they would have to argue that they are well known in the United States and also that he has no legitimate use for the domain. As I just pointed out, one always has a legitimate use of one's own name.

      Many people maned McDonald have found out differently.

    53. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dwye · · Score: 1

      one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business.

      Tell it to the MacDonald brothers, who were successfully sued by Macdonald's after they started another burger joint with that name, when they had sold their original to Ray Kroc. If he sells his domain, he can never have another like it, whether in .us, .me, or .sickporn, or they will have trademark infringement grounds.

      Anyway, they are registered in the Netherlands, only, and he has the TLA version. He can sue them for defamation if they do anything untowards, especially if he had his, first. If they were registered in every country BUT the USA, they still wouldn't have a leg to stand upon.

      Further, they would have to argue that they are well known in the United States and also that he has no legitimate use for the domain.

      Which, unless they are Shell Oil or Rutger Hauer, they aren't. Even if it is just a family or school nickname, or an old D&D character, his priority beats theirs. If they wanted to be global or have a global internet presence, they should have registered it here, first.

      _

      OTOH, no need to be a dick about it, unless they try calling in the liars, excuse me, lawyers, to do more than just make sure of every dotted I and crossed T after the OP agrees. And have his own lawyer look at it, with respect to US, Netherlands, and EU laws, in general, so that the OP knows what he shouldn't try, anymore, such as samedomain.us (firstname_samedomain.com would probably work, though -- maybe they can pay for its registration in perpetuity from a well-established registration company).

    54. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "since men don't change their names when they get married"

      Usually don't. My son-in-law did. From Jones to his wife's. Said he was tired of Jones.

    55. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dwye · · Score: 2, Informative

      > however, men /can/ change their names when they get married

      Men can change their names at any time, for any reason, the same as with women. Women just tend to do it on a particular occasion.

      They can also live under an assumed name, so long as no fraud is intended. John Wayne never legally changed his name from Marion Morrison, for instance; he just stopped using it.

      All of which is irrelevant to accusations of domain squatting, given that it has been his name since whenever.

    56. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      Yes, mikerowesoft.com is exactly what "Michael Rowe Software" should be using. /sarcasm. IIRC he was being "cool" but his homonym namesake paid him enough to change.

      A counter example is nissan.com: Nissan Motors trying to bully a small computer shop run by a Mr Nissan, and Nissan Computer winning. This could be like the OP's case, but with the big company offering to buy the domain instead of trying to lawyer in. I'm guessing the .nl company doesn't have the trademark internationally but still wants the international domain name. And there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps the best advice would be to reply with "make an offer" and see the ballpark of what they are willing to pay for it. (IANAL, IAN in the US, etc)

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    57. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 1

      Boilerplate that you have been using it for commercial purposes ( you write about work in email from time to time right?) for over 5 years will make you safer if someone is thinking of suing you over it.

    58. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jeebus. Never hit 'Submit' until you know you have a handle on the situation! If you don't read all the necessary information properly and then mouth off at someone for being an asshat, you'll actually end up making yourself look silly. I almost did it earlier :)

      The part that's cracking me up is that he was modded "insightful."

    59. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fag. Did his wife also bust his ass-cherry with a strap-on dildo?

    60. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DAYUM!!!

      I had no idea, I drive an Infiniti G35, I just ordered the "this is my last Nissan" bumper sticker for it.

      Thanks for the link, that was really scummy, but the courts were just as bad, that's a decision that could have taken all of 10 minutes and gone right from the beginning.

    61. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by gavron · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Nissan is a common spelling/pronunciation of Nitsan, an Israeli name.

      > ...mixed ethnicity...

      You prefer some sort of racial purity? Please share.

      Ehud

    62. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business.

      How deep in your ass did you reach to pull that one out? That has no basis in reality in United States Trademark law. It doesn't matter what your name is, it doesn't affect your trademark rights in the slightest.

      Source your bullshit or STFU.

    63. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know, say something bad about the US of A and be modded down, so be it

      Exactly what site do you think you're on? Blaming the US is like blaming religion; it's almost certain to get you modded up, even if it's a non-sequitur or blatantly false.

    64. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by imadoofus · · Score: 1

      Mike Rowe: Lawyer...it's a dirty job.

      --
      "pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
    65. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Informative

      In your case, I'd state that

      Without legal advice I would be very hesitant to give any non-public information. Even giving public information, that they obviously already know, *might* even be used to imply in a court, by omission, that you have no other claims to the domain. Simply fishing for more information, without making any claims, or anything that might be lost in translation as a threat Would seam safer. (IE re-stating what they already know, may sound more like a "lets fight", than "I also know what you know.")

      Simply, "I have received your letter. I would be interested in receiving any information you are willing to share relating to any plans you may have relating to "mylastname.com" "

      simply to get a feel for "are they legit" and "are they just fishing." before assuming anything more.

    66. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by jm4 · · Score: 1

      That didn't work too well for Mike Rowe, of Mike Rowe Software. It was genuinely his name, but a certain agressive trademark defender made him give up his domain.

      Like hell it didn't. That kid got an MSDN subscription, an XBOX, training for a Microsoft certification and a free trip to TechFest.

    67. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, your tutorial on how to allow others to pop your ass-cherry with a strap-on dildo was not available at the time

    68. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since men don't change their names when they get married

      Men usually do not, but they CAN. I know a man with a Polish surname (I don't think he is Polish but the name sure is) who married a woman named Jones.

      He took her surname and is now legally identified as Bob Jones, rather than Bob WiÅniewski. Their kids benefit from a normal-sounding last name and he doesn't have to tell anyone how to spell or pronounce it.

    69. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by fumblebruschi · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't out of context. In that speech Cade is listing all the great things that will happen, come the revolution: two chickens in every pot, free beer for everybody, we'll make Friday part of the weekend and give every new baby a chocolate eclair. And the very first thing, of all these great things we're going to do, is kill all the lawyers. It means exactly what it sounds like, and Cade said it because he was a populist and he knew it was what everybody wanted to hear.

    70. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by flewp · · Score: 1

      (IANAL, IAN in the US, etc)

      What does being nude in the US have to do with anything?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    71. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by AusIV · · Score: 1

      A scout leader of mine used to tell a story about his grandfather, who changed his last name from Fry (his birth name) to Frye (his wife's birth name) when they got married. (He may have changed from Frye to Fry, but you get the point).

    72. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it is.

      I hate rhetorical questions.

    73. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by jc42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another interesting case, if you can find the history from a decade ago, is the newton.com domain. It was owned by Mark Newton for years, and used by his small software shop, until Apple came out with the Newton and wanted the domain. Apple didn't negotiate; they just gave him the choices of giving up the domain or being bankrupted by the lawyers that Apple would sic on him. There were a few stories recently about Apple renewing the registration for newton.com, although they no longer actually use it for anything. It now just redirects to apple.com.

      So companies can be nice about it, or extremely nasty, or anything in between. I wonder if the US has any more legal protection from such things now than it did 10 or 15 years ago. Probably not; the big corporations can always bankrupt the little independents.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    74. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      ah, i guess i was mistaken.

      and, no, i don't believe in the concept of 'race'. i was just curious about 'Uzi', which i assumed was a Jewish name, + 'Nissan', which i thought must be Japanese.

    75. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by HoboMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is out of context, because William Shakespere didn't say that himself. It came out of the mouth of one of his characters. A villain, nonetheless. You can't attribute to the author what a character says. Characters frequently say things their authors disagree with.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    76. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      He's right, it even has sound that starts automatically, it's evil. Don't do it!

    77. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      This isn't just some lawsuit being threatened, ICANN is worse than US Courts when it comes to fucking over the little guy for the big corporate interest.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    78. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by b1ad3runn3r · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I had two domains registered which were letter variants of one another. They were used as my homepage (one linked to the other) and for consulting. A university from the Netherlands which was named the same wondered if I would sell it. I politely asked for the equivalent of the domain registration fees I had paid for it since I bought it (essentially a gift). Seems to me that each party got what they really deserved.

      --
      "Reality continues to ruin my life" - Calvin and Hobbes
    79. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Quantus347 · · Score: 1

      Consumers would be confused because they wouldn't know if this McDonald's was going to sell them a low-quality slapped-together microwaved piece of McCrap, or if this one happened to be some mom-and-pop knockoff instead.

      I notice how the MCrap is the large-scale Corporate product while the alternative is the small scale encroacher. Interesting...

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    80. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Mr. Uzi Nissan won and Nissan Motor Company lost. Your point was...?

      http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0825.html

    81. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers would be confused because they wouldn't know if this McDonald's was going to sell them a low-quality slapped-together microwaved piece of McCrap, or if this one happened to be some mom-and-pop knockoff instead.

      bravo, sir, bravo

    82. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      And a puppy? Not a very good deal unless he got a puppy out of it too.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    83. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That didn't work too well for Mike Rowe, of Mike Rowe Software. It was genuinely his name, but a certain agressive trademark defender made him give up his domain.

      To be fair, it's blatantly obvious that he chose his name as a parody of 'Microsoft'. "Mike Rowe Soft". MS had no choice but to pursue that. In this particular case it's unlikely an argument could be made that the submitter's domain name was chosen as a play on this other company's trademark.

      Two very different things, here.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    84. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      i believe this only applies if you're opening a competing business, that is, a restaurant. you can still open your Joe McDonald's Computer Repair or McDonald's Car Wash. Unless you try to put up golden arches as your logo, it cannot be reasonably assumed that customers will be confused. Just don't do stupid shit like the aforementioned, or imitating their font.

    85. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nissan is the name of a month in the Jewish calendar and from there it entered use for personal names in Israel.

      Nissan Motors Hebrew website is advertised as located at www.nissan-japan.co.il on Israeli Nissan car license plate holders but it looks to me like they now have bought out (or otherwise acquired) www.nissan.co.il from whoever had originally registered it.

    86. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by matria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nissan Motors didn't start "bullying" until Mr. Nissan started having automotive advertising on his site.

    87. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by matria · · Score: 1

      Well that's very interesting... I had followed this case some time ago, and was not aware of what's been going on lately. It seems there is a great deal more nastiness here than I was originally aware of.

      http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

    88. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Stipulated. However, my original point was aimed slightly differently -- that simply having the domain based on your real name is no guarantee that someone couldn't challenge it, and win.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    89. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      No need.

      Just tell them that you are going to think about the offer and check if their business is legitimate or not and then also check if the person contacting you is actually representing that company.

      It's fully possible that it's a domain squatter that is out collecting domains.

      And if it's a legitimate offer and you are willing to sell, you are welcome to do so.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    90. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      Villian? Sounds like a stand up guy to me.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    91. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nissan is a common spelling/pronunciation of Nitsan, an Israeli name.

      The name Nissan is not the same name as Nitsan. Nitsan is a flower bud. Nissan is a month in the Hebrew calendar. Both are names.

      I wrote to Uzi Nissan about a year ago when I bought my Ford Focus. I let him know that I didn't even look at the new Nissan models because of what the company is doing to him. Nissan is losing sales over their treatment of the little guy. Uzi Nissan was in the car business when Nissan was still called Datsun. It should be Uzi suing Nissan Motors over the use of the name, not the other way around.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    92. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      In the end, like most ask slashdot posts, the submitter should go to a lawyer and ask their opinion.

      Isn't that what /. is: free collective law advice?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    93. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by gavron · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. It's also Nissan the month. Welcome to the English spelling of names with different phonemes. Lots of transmorgifications occur. I'm sorry you're not up on those yet. But like they say, two Israelis, three opinions. Ehud

    94. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      especially if I included the note "Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co." on the entrance door of my store

      Make sure it looks like:
      Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co.

      With the name of the company that you are not affiliated with in large type.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    95. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Really, it's the law that's ruined it all. Legal bickering based on imprecise wording has effectively created an entire industry of lawyers.

      Most laws have to be imprecise to a certain extent, because it's impossible to anticipate every possible event that could happen that should be covered by it. If laws were precised there'd have to be vast amounts more of them and, of course, vast amounts more people making them - which is obviously not a good thing.

      A lot of the problems, though, come from poor drafting. The concepts are often alright, but they're not written down properly.

    96. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Ramses0 · · Score: 1

      http://www.robertames.com/blog.cgi/entries/links/patents-feb-2005.html

      Mah blog. I has it. And a decent write-up of the origins of the expression when it occurred to me to research it.

      --Robert

    97. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Ibn+al-Hazardous · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I always thought I was a man, and my wife was a woman. The fact that she gave birth to our children kinda indicates that would be the case.

      Alas, the fact that I took her name proves me wrong!

      --
      Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
    98. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

      Or they bring out the lawyers and everybody loses. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

      I think this link is more informative about the nissan.com issue.

      Its always good to see the underdog win.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    99. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      "It's not for sale, except if you offer me big $$$".

      That's how it is with anything that doesn't have "For Sale" written on it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    100. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Icarium · · Score: 1

      Unless he's operating a company sufficiently similar in nature to that of the registered trademark holder, trademark laws don't apply (at least not in the sense that they could be applied).

      If you open a fast food store or restaurant and call it McDonalds, yes you're asking for a legal slapdown. If you're a shoe shop, camping gear supplier or any number of other businesses that are unrelated to food in any way, there's nothing McDonalds (the fast food giant) can do.

    101. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Well, they can spell them however they want. I've seen my name spelled Dotan, Dothan, and worse. Doesn't bother me a bit, and we mungle their names in Hebrew to no end as well. Uzi Nissan, however, is the month. I know this from speaking with him.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    102. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trademarks, unlike patents, are restricted in scope: a trademark obtained in selling cars could not be enforced to computer sellers, and both marks could coexists.

    103. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Zordak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's generally true, but you also need to be careful of the relatively new dilution statute for "famous" marks. McDonald's camping gear will probably be okay (you may still get sued for dilution, but you have a better chance of winning since surname marks are inherently weak). But if you open Kodak shoe repair, or Exxon hot dogs, you will get sued, and you will probably lose.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    104. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      t is out of context, because William Shakespere didn't say that himself.

      Please re-read. I didn't say "Shakespeare said.." I said, "Shakespeare wrote..".

      According to David Bevington, probably the greatest Shakespeare scholar in the Western Hemisphere, the Bard knew quite well the effect on his audience of the words he put into Cade's mouth. He knew he was pandering to the uneducated, but like watching a fat, rich man fall and split his pants, a statement like his could be satisfying, even to the enlightened.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    105. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      It should be noted, though, that it's significantly easier in most states for a woman to change her name upon marriage than it is for a man to change his name under any circumstances (at least in the US). For the most part, this is because it is such a common practice for women to change their names when they marry. People seemingly bend over backwards to work around any problems in their system to make sure women can still have access to their bank accounts, credit cards, billing, etc. when they change their names. My wife is more or less still able to operate completely under her maiden name or married name.

      When men decide to change their name (for instance when a couple decides to hyphenate their last name when they marry), they often find they have a much harder time than their wife getting even the simplest things done, such as changing their name on a bill (hell, I can't even get people to spell my first name right on bills, and they can still find my credit record to give me a bad credit score if I don't pay it).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    106. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by LatencyKills · · Score: 1

      Lawyers have ruined being polite - no question about it. My wife and I just bought a house. It came with a number of complications with regards to rights of way and easements and whatnot. We were essentially buying the main house of an estate, and the previous owner was keeping the gatehouse. We got a lawyer to draft some agreements, the original homeowner got a lawyer to read them over, and the whole thing became really acrimonious. $10000 later and about 200 pieces of paper, and we're just about to throw the whole deal away as we're fighting over individual cobblestones in the driveway. We decided instead to meet the owner face-to-face, no lawyers. We had a nice day as she walked us through the house, talking about her memories of the place, her children, and her deceased husband. We ended up buying it and are developing a very close relationship with this woman, and it never would have happened because it's impossible to be civilized when holding discussions through lawyers.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    107. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it goes to court and the judge has any sense, it'll be considered bad faith or something else negative for you.

    108. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by sribe · · Score: 1

      Well, dude, you know what they say: "to thine own self be true" ;-)

    109. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im sorry im going to have to charge you for being polite since my lawers won the rights for me last year

    110. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>"It's not for sale, except if you offer me big $$$". What does that make you? Not respectable, I would say.

      Since when is it not respectable to seek a fair price/compensation for goods and services? If the market value of the domain name is "big bucks", why is it a problem if that's what he wants for it?

    111. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      We manage domains for a company that uses them, though not for websites. We get offers like this all the time. For one of the domains, on our clients order, we reply that the price is $10 million US.

      For others, we let them know the fixed price.

      For still others, we let them know it's not for sale.

      And we always let them know there are lots of reasons to use domain names besides the web.

      I would suggest to batzerto, though, that he (she?) should NEVER sell a domain name except through an escrow company with a good reputation; otherwise it's too easy to lose it. Let the buyer pay the fee.

      And of course I can't help but hope someone pays the $10 million; I could retire off my commission. :)

    112. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAL here. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. You don't actually own it just becuase it's your name. And you can't register it against a trademark action becuase you aren't using it in commerce (Lanham Act).

      Inviting the opposing party to make an offer has been seen in the past as evidence of obtaining the domain in 'bad faith' or 'for commercial gain' and has been reasoning for giving the domain over to the corporate party. I haven't read the case in a while or shepardized it, but I think it's PETA v. Doughney which is enlightening in this instance.

    113. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by FishAdmin · · Score: 1

      Exactly what site do you think you're on? Blaming the US is like blaming religion; it's almost certain to get you modded up, even if it's a non-sequitur or blatantly false.

      That statement is the exact sort of bigotry I'd expect from a Christian in America!

      --
      Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
    114. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by phillips321 · · Score: 1

      nobaloney, you are an idiot! If you wanted to make a bit of cash from this deal you should have set up a temp holding page on your domain and then posted the name of the domain in your AskSlashdot question. You'll then get loads of hits and before you know it your domain looks like it's worth more to potential buyers.

    115. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think you're serious. But if so, then you ignore the fact that i work for my client; I wrote on my clients order.

  2. Trap by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can they accuse you of domainsquatting if you ask for money or something like that?

    Seems like I've heard similar horror stories of people losing their domains because they asked someone to make an offer.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Trap by Drakin020 · · Score: 1

      I didn't think that was the case as long as the domain was actually in use, rather than just sitting.

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    2. Re:Trap by smilindog2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since this is his actual name, it's technically not domain squatting. Here's what I'd do. Just ask for a few thousand dollars. It's not enough to piss off the buyer, or to convince him to send lawyers to take the domain by force.

      I know someone here in Chapel Hill, NC who realized how slow the South was picking up on the web. He bought several domain names, of local businesses, and asked for $2,000 any time they asked for the domain. The amount was too low to bother with lawyers, so they just paid it. It's slimy, and I wouldn't do such a thing, but in this case, the guy's just being asked for his personal domain.

      Here's my favorite domain related suit. This guy's name is Nissan, and so is his business.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    3. Re:Trap by MindCore1 · · Score: 1

      ICANN has very specific rules about what is considered squatting. They would have to prove that he is holding the domain to be anti-competitive (i.e. if Pepsi had coke.com to prevent Coca-Cola from purcahsing it) and/or he must be in violation of a trademark. Since the domain is his last name, I doubt they would have a case.

    4. Re:Trap by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      That is actually the one I was thinking of when posting my reply.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    5. Re:Trap by lamapper · · Score: 1
      It is obvious by the documentation made available that Mr. Nissan used his family name years before the auto company used it. By all rational thought he should be entitled to not only keep using it, but damages from Nissan. Also Nissan should be prevented from using it at all.

      Here is a case where the US Courts initially got it wrong seemed to redress the situation by awarding ultimately to Mr Nissan, but IMO they (US.Courts did not go far enough). Mr Nissan should not only have received 100% of his lawyers fees, but damages to boot plus the company Nissan should be fined for wasting the courts time as it was obvious to them, that Mr Nissan had an obvious precedent in using his family name.

      This should have been a no-brain er. It's pathetic and should be an eye-opener to how many abuse the court system and waste tax payer dollars.

      I have no problem with an entity bringing a law suit, however I ask that they pay for it, rather then any tax dollars of U.S. Citizens. And when it is obvious that the entity is wasting the courts time, they (and their lawyers) should be fined accordingly.

      Perhaps then, frivolous lawsuits would be stopped.

      And basing decisions here in the U.S. on court decisions of courts in other countries (with obvious philosophical differences to issues such as: individual rights, citizenship, ownership, freedom, separation of church vs state, etc...) is just crazy! Many of our politicians seem not to get it and the founders of the Constitution provided ample warning....will we listen?

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    6. Re:Trap by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And when it is obvious that the entity is wasting the courts time, they (and their lawyers) should be fined accordingly.

      Yes, but the bar for what constitutes a "frivolous" lawsuit has to be set very very high.

      There was a time when a black family bringing suit to be able to send their children to the closest public school to their home would have been seen as "frivolous" to many of the racist judiciary in certain parts of the United States. Interestingly, these states mostly have Republican governors today. I'm just sayin'.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Trap by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      Can they accuse you of domainsquatting if you ask for money or something like that?

      Seems like I've heard similar horror stories of people losing their domains because they asked someone to make an offer.

      I think the case here is probably that they made the demand first. But the fact remains, if it's your own name it's automatically for a legitimate purpose and a cybersquatting claim will fail.

      I own every version of Paul Robinson I could buy, of the 14 versions using "PaulRobinson" or "Paul-Robinson" and ending in .BIZ, .COM, .INFO, .NAME, .NET, .ORG, and .US, I own 9 of them including both versions of .US, .ORG and .INFO. If there's someone else named Paul Robinson - and there are, I've shared e-mail or spoken with at least 10 other people with the same name as myself, including a man who was the system manager of the computer system at the college I studied at - he has no more right to argue cybersquatting than I would against the owners of the other 5 domains I couldn't get (or couldn't afford).

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    8. Re:Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot that law and justice about one thing in modern countries. Who has the cash gets the justice.

      A large company can afford many appeals and hire PIs to find dirt on an individual, to show that the defendant is an incompetent, greedy boob who is interfering with the profits of a legitimate business. Then, the domain is taken from the individual, but to add insult to injury the individual will owe for the corporate legal team's time (think 7 figures). If lucky the person would be forced into bankruptcy, if unlucky, their house, car, and possessions would become that company's.

    9. Re:Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you are right and this would be a valid concern. As much as I want to believe that a 'jury of their peers' would get it right, there are numerous examples where they have not.

      So very valid point!

      I would like to believe that if the lawyer was held also responsible as well (for taking the frivolous lawsuit) you could credibly argue that it might prevent a 'valid' lawsuit from going forward.

      I would like to think that if even 'reasonable' lawyers (no pun intended) refused to take the case that the claimant might think twice...thus reducing the burden on our courts.

      A committed person can always represent themselves in any case.

    10. Re:Trap by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Say what now? The whole of "common law" was cribbed entirely from another country's jurisprudence.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Trap by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      You're "just sayin' " what? That Republican governors are racists?

      I hope not. That's the same kind of smear logic that racists and other bigots use.

      (And yes, your main point has merit.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    12. Re:Trap by lamapper · · Score: 1

      And I would like to believe that we have improved upon it. Especially over the last 200+ years....

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    13. Re:Trap by online-shopper · · Score: 1

      But when those lawsuits were going on, those states had Democrat governors.

    14. Re:Trap by WNight · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that just make you more vulnerable to me picking up a new variation on that domain?

    15. Re:Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are racist.

      They're all crying now since New Orleans didn't get wiped out a second time.

    16. Re:Trap by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      but to add insult to injury the individual will owe for the corporate legal team's time (think 7 figures)

      I believe courts only award attorney's fees to the plaintiff in trademark cases in extraordinary situations.

      I.e. it is rare, and only when a mark has been used in bad faith.

      Anyone have any examples?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  3. sell it or not by chizy2 · · Score: 1

    Does not hurt to see what they are willing to give you for it.

    1. Re:sell it or not by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      as soon as you ask, they might send lawyers saying you're "squatting", even if you had the domain before their trademark was registered. ICANN heavily favors trademark owners over anybody else. If you don't want to sell, don't even respond... not even to say it's not for sale.

  4. On the condition... by DavidpFitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sell it, on the condition that you can keep your email address on the domain.

    Win-win!

    1. Re:On the condition... by HFShadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would trust your personal email to a random company who bought your domain off you?

      The world you live in must be nice.

    2. Re:On the condition... by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just ask them to point their MX records to your server. And make this a contract condition.

    3. Re:On the condition... by Loether · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah and i was thinking from the POV of the business. They are going to support this guy who they bought the domain from. the guy doesn't work for us, we don't know him at all and he's going to be able to send out valid emails from my companies domain.

      No thanks. Pass.

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    4. Re:On the condition... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I would do. Of course, I'd notify anyone and everyone I could of the switch to my other domain and my new email address. But at least I'd have my old email address to catch anything from anyone who didn't update it.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    5. Re:On the condition... by mfh · · Score: 0

      >The galaxy you live in must be nice.

      Fixed.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    6. Re:On the condition... by eln · · Score: 1

      I think that's unreasonable and unsustainable, because then you're essentially creating a permanent relationship between the two parties.

      However, stipulating that they forward email destined for your address to your new domain for a period of, say, 6 months seems reasonable. I used to work for an ISP that decided to sell its domain to another company (one of the satellite radio guys), and IIRC one of the contract terms was that email be forwarded for some period of time to allow customers time to transition to the new domain name.

    7. Re:On the condition... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Better yet, lease it to them and retain control of the domain...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    8. Re:On the condition... by baadger · · Score: 1

      Or he could request firtname.lastname.com have its own set of nameserver (NS) records delegated to a DNS provider of his choosing, and have a contract drawn up.

      Another option is just to forget the .com and go register the dot name

    9. Re:On the condition... by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      Or just demand that they set up an autoresponder in perpetuity which tells people you've changed email addresses. Optionally give your new email address in the message (even link to it as an image for braindead spambot avoidance and the ability to update it).

      This neatly side-steps the problem of allowing you to send what looks like trusted emails from their domain. (Actually, I suppose just having them forward the mail but not allow your account SMTP access would also work.)

    10. Re:On the condition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFShadow,
      Lol,
      You trust your email to the INTERNET???

      At least with a contract stating what is agreed upon, for how long and what happens if they default he has some assurances.

      Any "normal" person's email address through their ISP or whatever is no more secure in content or even existence, ISP's go out of business all the time.

      What world do you live in anyway?

    11. Re:On the condition... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      No, because what if you have a brain-dead noreply newsletter that sends a "please don't reply" message every time it gets one. Then you get a bit of a problem.

      --
      $ make available
    12. Re:On the condition... by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Also, ask for at least a 1-year redirection agreement. That way most people won't find their bookmarks to be broken.

    13. Re:On the condition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be better to offer to host their domain / email for them as a business and just outsource it to GoDaddy or equivalent. Then you can make a regular income from it and keep your email.

    14. Re:On the condition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or keep the domain name and rent them www.domain.com. you can alias domain.com to www.domain.com. you can also rent them mail.domain.com for their mail and keep your own email address.

      win-win-win!

    15. Re:On the condition... by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      even better, lease to them the use of www. and any other aubsomains they need as well as forwarding specific email addresses (sales, support). That way, they get what they want (presence at .com for people who stumble there) and a lower up-front cost. In return, you get a recurrin revenue stream and to keep your email address.

    16. Re:On the condition... by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      Well... He could state clearly that he is using it for his personal email as it is his name... and that he would sell it to them for a reasonable amount, but that for the first year(or more?) they would forward any/all mail sent to XYZ@DOMAIN.com (what ever address he has been using)...

      This would allow him to receive any mail from people/companies that are slow to update their contact lists.

      I'd say; reply and say you've been using it for personal mail for X number of years, you've never heard of them before they contacted you, it's your name but you would consider selling it for a reasonable amount but you are not sure what is reasonable ... and you would need several addresses to be forwarded to you for a while to make sure that you don't lose any correspondence from people that have not updated there lists. You don't want to send mails from the address but you would need to receive them...

       

    17. Re:On the condition... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Unless they happen to be in a different country, then they are under no obligation to honour the contract.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    18. Re:On the condition... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      ???

      Then how do all these international trade contracts work?

    19. Re:On the condition... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      International contracts work like a normal contract, if someone breaks that contract then you can take them to court, but if they are outside that courts jurisdiction they can ignore the ruling.

      I've had overseas contracts broken before and I know not to deal with those parties again. If I win a judgement in court and they ignore it, then they could be punished for disobeying the court but only if they enter the courts jurisdiction e.g my country.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    20. Re:On the condition... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      So you can sue them in their own country. What's the problem?

      Also, if you sue them in the US then this company will have problems if they ever try to work in the US.

    21. Re:On the condition... by dublin · · Score: 1

      I did. Really, this isn't that hard, if you're dealing with a reputable outfit. (and if you're not, then shame on you for not doing enough checking to find that out.)

      I sold a domain 11 years ago for what now seems a ridiculously low price, but I only used it for e-mail, and the company in question was Canadian and their customers were constantly confused by them not having the ".com" variant of the name.

      I dealt directly with their CFO and CEO over the phone first, and then wrote up a contract letter on my own in perfectly clear and unambiguous English, not legalese, outlining the deal.

      Part of the deal was that they forward four e-mail addresses in perpetuity. It's worked for me so far. Every couple of years, some e-mail admin will try to "fix" it, but even after the company folded a while ago, the group that wound up with the domain name agreed that they needed to forward the mail to preserve their ownership of the domain, and it still works.

      You don't need lawyers for something this simple, just common sense. My only advice, make sure the agreement specifies what happens if they go bust - that was a grey area in my agreement - it worked out, but it wasn't as clear as it should have been.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    22. Re:On the condition... by dublin · · Score: 1

      They're not likely to want to do that, but having done it, I can tell you that you can require forwarding in perpetuity. And someone below mentions that international law is a problem.

      No it's not. Just specify that the contract is defined by the laws of your local jurisdiction, and that's a non-issue - at least the guys I dealt with in British Columbia had no problem with the contract being defined by the laws of Texas. Of course, if you have to resort to lawyers, you've already lost. It's just a bloody domain, after all. Cut a deal that makes both parties happy and run with it...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  5. Have them cover your costs by g-san · · Score: 1

    of transferring to your new domain. It might not amount to much, but it is something, and doesn't put you in the greedy category.

    you might also want to ask them about forwarding your mail for a period of time or sending a special bouncygram back with your new email address.

    1. Re:Have them cover your costs by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking the bouncygram is the best solution. No real calls on the IT staff and no real capital outlay.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  6. If I were you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd ask what they'd want in return.

    Then I'd make love to your wife, read a story to your kids, drown your cat and transfer all your cash to a non-profit humanitarian group.

    You are soliciting for advice right?

    Be a man nancy-boy and make your own decisions. This 'wisdom of the crowds' thing has gone too far.

  7. Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Idaho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.

    So simply don't respond.

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    1. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by CogDissident · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't it illegal to trick someone into doing something illegal?

    2. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Rayeth · · Score: 1

      Can you prove it?

    3. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is /., people would rather get wrapped up in a 1/1,000,000 chance of something being a big trap than suggest this guy try and profit.

      I've sold three domains I was legitimately using and made a pretty nice wad of cash. They all initiated with similar emails. The highest one being $19k USD.

      Let fear reign and opportunity escape.

    4. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by ribit · · Score: 1

      except domain name squatting isn't illegal

    5. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by cecom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I saw this in several comments already. Think, people, think ! :-) How the f*ck can be considered a domain name squatter if the domain carries his own name ??

    6. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by CogDissident · · Score: 1

      Its pretty easy to prove entrapment:
      company: "He is domain squatting"
      guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
      judge: "I find in favor of the defendant (the guy)"

      Its basically that easy.

    7. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It's only entrapment if it's the government doing it. I think there is a similar defense in civil court, though damned if I can remember what it's called.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by daveywest · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but since the OP's last name is the same as the domain, its going to be hard to show he is a squatter.

      I'd respond explaining exactly what he posted here, and expressly pointing out that he has a vested interested in maintaining the domain for personal use. If they really want the domain, ask them to make a written offer and let them come up with a price.

      Of course, if you aren't using the domain for web hosting, then you could offer to redirect http requests to their TLD and retain ownership of the domain.

    9. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Alistar · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1, Informative

      if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.

      I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like a pretty flimsy legal argument. (Which doesn't mean someone won't try and use it in court--but I just doubt it would stand up.)

      Lots of people have sold domain names in the past, and even advertised them for sale. People even buy domain names speculatively and sell them later. All of this is legal and not "squatting". The nasty stuff is typo-squatting, or otherwise intentionally confusing consumers. Sitting on a domain name that most people would assume points to a particular company can sometimes fall into this category.

      In this case, the submitter indicated that the domain name is his last-name. That sounds like a pretty solid defense in any court against the squatting argument. In terms of any squatting or trademark dispute, his claim (last name) is equally valid to the company's claim (company name).

      My inclination would be to just come up with a fair price, and then tell them that you are actively using the domain, but would be willing to sell it to them for $X. Either they accept or they don't. I doubt this is an attempt to trick him. (Then again, maybe I'm a naive glass-half-full kind of person.)

    11. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by markitect · · Score: 1

      You can also send them an email very clearly stating that you are not in the business of selling domain names. If you are seriously considering selling it invite them to call you in person to "discuss options". Make sure that they are not recording the phone call and you will be able to talk business with no record of what exactly was discussed. Finally make sure they send you an agreement to buy the domain that specifically prevents them from suing you for squatting, and depending on what they are offering you should consider getting a contract lawyer to look at it. I would also ask that they forward your mail for 10 years or something like that.

    12. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.

      Well, he did say that the domain in question is his own last name. So unless he changed his last name recently, I would think the Dutch company would have a hard time demonstrating that he was domain-name squatting.

      I would suspect a reasonable person would see that both the poster and the company have reasonable claims on the domain - however the poster purchased the .com iteration first. If he was to respond to them and say "I might be interested, if you meet criteria ABC for a price of XYZ or better", I don't see how that could really be taken as domain-name squatting.

      After all, we are talking about his last name, here.

      If you really want to have fun, you could ask them to pay for you (and your family) to all change your last name legally as well.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by swillden · · Score: 2, Funny

      I saw this in several comments already. Think, people, think ! :-) How the f*ck can be considered a domain name squatter if the domain carries his own name ??

      That's what I tried to tell the judge when he took away my son's domain name. I mean if it's your NAME don't you have some right to it?

      On an unrelated note, my son's name is mircosoft.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 1

      Only if the person doing the tricking is a member of a law enforcement agency, and is doing it for the purpose of catching you performing an illegal act.

      For example, a law enforcement agent cannot, as I understand it, impersonate a drug dealer for the purposes of arresting drug addicts for purchase and possession of illegal narcotics from said agent.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

    15. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by bconway · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which one is the law enforcement officer?

      Oh, right. Not entrapment.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    16. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by YoungFelon · · Score: 0

      Even if it's his own last name?

    17. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct me if i'm wrong, But i think entrapment only applies to police.

      "Entrapment is the act of **a law enforcement agent** in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed"

    18. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      I've always responded with a short description of how attached I am to which ever domain and the level of effort I think would be involved in transferring my site/content to a new domain name. I've never given a Dollar figure, just an idea of how much compensation I might need. No one has ever come back with an offer, leading me to believe that either they weren't that interested or they were looking to "entrap" me.

    19. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by jjm496 · · Score: 1

      Just a bit of a paranoid answer. The fact that your name matches the domain name is proof in itself that you are not a squatter and you have a legit claim to it. I'd go for it, just don't get crazy in the amount and it will likely go smoothly.

    20. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bunch of bullshit in this case because it's his name, not just some random .com that he grabbed. See McDonalds vs McBrats(or something close to that..I forget the guy's last name but it was shortened to McBrat for a soccer team he was sponsoring, I think).

    21. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Entrapment is a criminal statutory doctrine, not a civil one.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    22. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by tinkerghost · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case, the submitter indicated that the domain name is his last-name. That sounds like a pretty solid defense in any court against the squatting argument. In terms of any squatting or trademark dispute, his claim (last name) is equally valid to the company's claim (company name).

      Depends on the name & the country. McD's doesn't push trademark restrictions too hard in the UK because Lord McDonald of McDonald told them to lay off or else. In some places, a person's name wins every time. In the US it depends on timing & scope. However, in most instances, trademark violations have to show the potential for confusion - with few exceptions, a personal website cannot be easily confused with a corporate homepage.

      In terms of squatting, it would depend, since he's using & has been using the domain for email - the presence or absence of a website is irrelevant to squatting. Showing active use of the domain for some purpose other than ad-parking is usually sufficient to kill a squatting complaint.

    23. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Ioldanach · · Score: 2, Informative

      company: "He is domain squatting"
      guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
      judge: "I find in favor of the defendant (the guy)"

      Where have you been living? For a mere $1,200, a company can file for arbitration and stands a good chance of the arbitrator finding in favor of them.

      (more likely)
      company: "He is domain squatting"
      guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
      ICANN abritrator: You named a price, therefore you're willing to sell it, and you have no website, therefore you're a squatter. Plus, they have a trademark and you don't. Here you go, [company].

    24. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that's not a very good example, because it's not just his name and it's very obvious he added "soft" on to match Microsoft's trademark. I don't know people keep bringing up this case, as it an example of the system working like it should.

    25. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by JPLemme · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL, but I believe much of the argument depends on when and why you registered the name. If your last name was "Scion" and you had registered "scion.com" back in 1992, AND for the last 15 years it had been your personal home page and email address, then Toyota probably wouldn't be able to accuse you of squatting.

      But if you registered "scion.com" just after you learned that Toyota was starting a new nameplate, and you filled the page with links to various car-related websites, then you don't have nearly as much of a leg to stand on. IIRC, Mr. Nissan had registered his domain name early, but the website was seemingly designed to make money off of people who assumed "nissan.com" was the car company. Reserving your name is OK, but trying to confuse the customers of a mega-corporation with mega-lawyers is a risky gambit.

      I always thought the classiest act was the guy who owned delta.com back in the 90s. I forget what the company was (a little consulting shop, maybe?), but right on his front page he had links to Delta Airlines, Delta Dental, Delta Faucets, and Delta Power Tools for people who had done an "address-bar search".

    26. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by marc.andrysco · · Score: 1

      For me, a few years back, I got an email similar to the one posted, and I went ahead with selling my domain. I owned two domain names for the same website, and the domain they wished to purchase was my old one (I transitioned everything to the new one a year prior) so I no longer really had a need for that domain. I kept it only because the name was a super short and it was dirt cheap. I went ahead with the deal anyway since I didn't really have anything to lose. The transfer was through Paypal, so no real sensitive information changed hand. In the end, everything worked out fine and I ended up with over a thousand extra bucks.

      I figured this would be good food for thought, although don't presume that my rather good experience is a green light. Heck, I took a few days to contemplate it before committing to it.

    27. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by sjf · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the internet. If you're not browsing with your credibility threshold set to "999,999/1,000,000 offers are scams," then I've got some little blue pills I'd like to sell you - I'm the manager of an implausibly sounding bank in Nigeria, and if you'd just pay some advance fees, I can increase your bust size while you make money at home !

    28. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      Well, when the law sides with the person with the most funds, of course fear is going to reign. Maybe if ICANN would stop acting like UCANT, then situations like this wouldn't even be worth mentioning beyond the level of profit gained.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    29. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      While that's true, still, the email he received looks like an authentic inquiry. He doesn't need to set himself up for sounding like a squatter. He can simply tell the company he's using it for email and has plans to expand it's use for his company further down the road, but would be willing to consider a reasonable offer.

    30. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really the American way of thinking.
      We don't have this lawsuit culture like that in the Netherlands.

      In Netherlands when we have a little accident is absolutely normal to say sorry without automatically accepting all responsibility. In the US you will be sued to death if you said sorry.

      Just give a price, don't expect to get rich at once but help a company to make real use of the domain. Forwarding the mail for a year can also something of the deal, use that for notifying everybody that you have a new address.

      In the Netherlands we are not used to high priced domains. This is probably a small company that just tries to buy the .com domain. I googled for N de Robles and only found "Norma de Robles". This is a clothing designer (not a big name or anything).

      Give more info and I will tell about their business.

    31. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >On an unrelated note, my son's name is mircosoft.

      You are a bad parent!

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    32. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is a Dutch company and simply doing the sensible thing for a domain they want to buy: approaching the owner and asking him if wants to sell it (though normally the Dutch speak better English than is in that letter).

      Only americans use litigation as a first resort and so assume that that is what everyone else will do. I can tell you as a European who deals with US companies routinely that they are a fucking nightmare.

    33. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Except that he does have a website, and there are trademark exceptions when it comes to using your own name.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    34. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /. and you are all Americans? I am however Dutch, the *.nl guys are Dutch too. And we do not have a culture of suing people. Period. We just don't do.
      So my guess is, they want to buy your domain name. Probably cheap - the way we Dutch are... I would think of a price and ask them. Trust me - you cannot imagine - they will not sue (nor trap you - how can they? ask you to pay them first?).

    35. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap;

      I don't think he said that so much as he asked what his options were.

      if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.

      Again, no, they made the offer to him first; he didn't ask them for anything; they asked him. Also, even if it is their trademark, and is registered in the U.S., they have to show an improper purpose to claim domain name squatting. If it's his own name, it's automatically a proper purpose and he could even offer to sell it to them first and it cannot ever be cybersquatting.

      To argue otherwise - that if someone makes me an unsolicited offer to buy something I own causes me to be unable to sell it to them would be ridiculous; it would leave every single company who wanted to legally acquire a domain from someone else in the position that they could never buy a domain from someone who had it because the other party could never sell it to them even though they are a willing purchaser and therefore it would frustrate a company that wants to obtain a domain from someone who has it and might be willing to sell it.

      I took a look at some websites, and in order for a use to actually be cybersquatting, all of the following must be true:

      • the domain name registrant had a bad-faith intent to profit from the trademark
      • the trademark was distinctive at the time the domain name was first registered
      • the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, and
      • the trademark qualifies for protection under federal trademark laws -- that is, the trademark is distinctive and its owner was the first to use the trademark in commerce.

      Since the guy is using the domain to get mail, he has a legitimate use of the domain, even if it wasn't his own name. Since it is his name, no matter what he's using it for, the use is automatically in good faith (short of him using it to run a criminal enterprise).

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    36. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this example?

    37. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ask Uzi Nissan that question and see what answer you get.

      www.nissan.com

    38. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      search slashdot for mikerowsoft

    39. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, a law enforcement agent cannot, as I understand it, impersonate a drug dealer for the purposes of arresting drug addicts for purchase and possession of illegal narcotics from said agent.

      You understand wrong then.

      Turing word: "hashish"

    40. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by hattig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you really think that any of the paid domain name resolution companies care about trademark law if it isn't in their paying client's favour?

      Do you think the average joe in the street who has just lost his domain is going to file a lawsuit to get it back?

      No, this guy cannot in any way ask them how much they are willing to pay.

      He should reply however:

      "Hi, thank you for your email.

      As you can see, I use this domain name for my personal email service and website, amongst other activities, and I have done so for three thousand days. The domain matches my surname. It would be quite inconvenient to have to switch to using another service, in time and money, as well as inconvenient to all my contacts.

      Therefore I am currently predisposed to not sell my domain name. However if certain aspects (in particular my email address) of my current use of the domain name were able to be continued (for at least a switch-over period) in the case that I was to provide you with the domain name for a sum of money to cover my costs and inconvenience then I would be amenable to further discussion of the matter.

      Yours sincerely,

      Hector H. Hectorus-Hectorii III"

      Then they can come back and do things. Email also has the advantage of being a nice record of actions.

      I'm sure that a few more replies can hone that text above into something that might actually be watertight against the other company taking you to arbitration because they're cunts in reality (if they are, they might be entirely honest, I don't know)...

    41. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      He has an EMAIL ADDRESS. Email != website. But I see where you're going. Still, better not to get sucked into arbitration by mentioning your reason for owning the name up front, and pointing out that you have priority in this case.

      --
      $ make available
    42. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      except domain name squatting isn't illegal

      except you can get sued.

      --
      $ make available
    43. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Make sure that they are not recording the phone call [snip]

      How?

      --
      $ make available
    44. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by ribit · · Score: 1

      But if you follow the rules, mostly you would just lose the domain name dispute process and lose the registration.

    45. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McD tried to force oxfords to remove Mcjob from their dictionary.

      Here they tried to get a guy with the McAllen to stop calling his hotdog stand McAllens, only after after it got all the way to the highest court did he
      win the right to use his own name on his shop!
      but that was after years of fighting and lots of money..

    46. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by sleigher · · Score: 1

      yes, this is pretty much why cops aren't crack dealers too......

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    47. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by swillden · · Score: 1

      Not as bad as this.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    48. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      I remember when ATI.com sold fake dog poop. They also politely hosted a link, to the graphics manufacturer.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    49. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it illegal to trick someone into doing something illegal?

      That's entrapment, and it only applies as a defense for a criminal prosecution. However, if the other side makes an offer, then when the person accepts or makes a counter-offer, uses that in a suit to claim cybersquatting, there may be grounds of unclean hands to defeat that claim.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    50. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by jschrod · · Score: 1
      Yeah, what's with this example? Sting (who is a great musician, but seems to be an asshole as a person, according to many reports) tried to wrangle the Internet domain sting.com from someone who registered it in 1995, long before Sting even acknowledged that the Internet existed. (My own domains are from 1992/1993, I know about these times.)

      This was denied. As the GP quoted, the system worked as intended. This time.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    51. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it is not illegal to trick someone into making something they've already done look like it was illegal.

    52. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by mikechant · · Score: 1

      I guess you must be referring to estoppel although I'm not convinced as to whether inducing you to believe they want to buy your domain when they're actually planning to sue falls within the definition. They could claim they were collecting evidence of your possible ill intent and that was the only way to do it.

    53. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by brian_tanner · · Score: 1

      Or, offer a reasonable price and make some easy money. Why would they pursue a court case when they can get it from you for a reasonable price?

      I sold a domain name in a similar situation, made, $2000, easy peasy. (Zaam.com)

      The only difference is they made me an anonymous offer through afternic.com, so I didn't know that my obscure domain name matched the Zurich Association of Asset Management (or some such). I should have gambled and asked for more money.

    54. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But -- what about my pen1s size and herbal V14gra?

    55. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by pixel.jonah · · Score: 1

      I second this. In my case the (personal) email address the request was sent from allowed me to find out that it was indeed a valid representative of the company inquiring about the domain.

      My tactic was to show that I was aware of the potential value of the domain to them and so was not about to be low-balled. He asked me to name a number, he countered and we finally met in the middle. (Enough to pay off my car.)

      We went through a broker for the actual transaction.

      They used it as the name of their product for a couple years and have moved on - it now redirects to their home page.

    56. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, he cannot be a squatter if he is using it for a something more then selling ads.

      There is also no requirement that a domain name must have a web page. Using a domain name for email is perfectly valid.

      I have the domain name http;//jppeach.com and several variations on it. I tried for a very long time to get http://jpeach.com Every year, around renewal time, I would send an email to the owner and ask if he was interested in selling. The previous owners were not using it for much but they wanted to hold onto it. It sounds like this guy is doing the same thing and there is nothing wrong with that. People are leaving all kinds of comments about lawyers getting involved. That is a very American mentality.

      If you are interested, just tell the guy your concerns and suggest a price or ask for an offer. If it is worth your while to sell then go for it. If it is not then keep the domain name. I do not think there is anything underhanded an there is no need to be paranoid.

    57. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gimme a break. Interested in selling a valuable property does not make one a squatter.

      Worse, by refusing to sell, you are in fact forcing some legal action, if that was the original intent. If it wasn't, then you're just ruining what could have been a fruitful transaction for both sides. I speak from experience -- I bought a valuable domain name from someone who was just using it for email in 2001. The person I bought it from transferred it to me without even receiving a check, and was quite happy when the check arrived and cleared ok!

      If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you expect to be at least accorded a response?

    58. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can increase your bust size while you make money at home "

      I'll take it!

      Sincerely,

      John

    59. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've just been through this with a squatter for a client. She is a model, not a supermodel, but big enough to turn down Playboy for a half-million. Some asshole is squatting on her fullname.com another asshole is squatting on her hyphenated-name.com. I contacted the first one and asked what they wanted for the name. They told me. Since I contacted them, not the other way around, I cannot say that they are predatory (this according to ICANN) ... now I CAN sue them and probably win, but it will cost more than these pricks want for the domain and it will take a while. So they win.

    60. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by TheLuggage · · Score: 1

      Since the company is dutch, it might be intresting to see a dutch point of view. Although we are a lot less keen on lawyers and lawsuits on this side of the pond, there have been a few cases about domainnames. Notably case of Proctor & Gamble vs Magenta over ariel.nl. A case wich was lost by proctor & gamble. From a legal standpoint it could be better to have them make an offer for your work in moving your internet activities to another domain. Tell them you are not seeking to sell your domain, but are willing to considder to move it. And for dutch law quite important, inform them that the domainname is for personal, non commercial use (under dutch laws you can only have trademark violation when used in "economic traffic" i.e. money is involved, whether commercial or charitable)

    61. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I can increase your bust size

      Slashdotters would never leave the house.

      Oh, never mind, they never leave the house anyway.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    62. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      That's a harsh punishment if you happen to be using the domain for email.

      The email I have listed here on /. was just being used as a temporary address while I changed ISPs back in 2003, but it's not that easy to change email address because not only do you need to update ALL your contacts, but you must also change your details on everything your registered to and it becomes a real pain in the ass. I changed from my old isp address out of necessity and would not go through the hassle again (the reason I still use this address).

       

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    63. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by ribit · · Score: 1

      Yes but only if you are domain name squatting... You aren't.

      (Its really a good idea to never use an ISP email address.. Keep yourself independent of whatever your current provider happens to be.)

    64. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by houghi · · Score: 1

      OK, ask it in another way. If you see a domain and you want to know if the other is willing to sell it, what would you do?

      A) Send in the lawers and take it by a courtorder, even if it is in another country
      B) Ask if they are interested or not

      Mmm. To me it looks just as if this is B)

      And if you are not willing to negotiate, just tell them so.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    65. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Yes but only if you are domain name squatting... You aren't.

      How do you prove that someone is not using a domain for email? Unless they have blank MX records.

      (Its really a good idea to never use an ISP email address.. Keep yourself independent of whatever your current provider happens to be.)

      That's one reason I never moved to the new ISP's mail, I'll never use another domain for email that is not my own, the freedom is good.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    66. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by ribit · · Score: 1

      I think if a domain is in use then besides the WHOIS, a search for nameserver records, MX records etc will find something... But I'm not sure you have to actually have an active service on it, you just have to have intent to use it legitimately?

    67. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I've seen cases where people who put ad pages on domains have been accused of squatting when they have in fact been using the domain for other services.

      I think the problem is defining what is and is not "Legitimate".

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    68. Re:Finally a use for the 'itsatrap' tag by ribit · · Score: 1

      The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does clarify the issues very well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDRP

  8. What you're advocating will screw him by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Google bomb your url with their company name by creating a Slashdot user account with their name and submit thousands of stories each week with your url in the homepage. You can also drop the company's name with an href to your url in CNN comments and on comments for popular blogs to get your pagerank up.

    That's a great way for the Dutch company to sue you in a federal court for trademark infringement, and they'll win if you follow this route. If you use their name, and your url, that's just asking for trouble unless your name and their company name are EXACTLY the same.

  9. .us? by qoncept · · Score: 1

    I don't know what to do about squeezing them for money, but I wouldn't get any a domain under any TLD other than .com for email. People are idiots and couldn't find my domain (at .org) even after I added .org to the application's name that the site hosted (after taking a cue from open office).

    --
    Whale
    1. Re:.us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And you're concerned about idiots being able to email you why?

    2. Re:.us? by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      Idiots often have money, and money is nice.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  10. www.zerba.com by Stubtify · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think this is the website in question.

    Don't know if I crossed a line, but it took all of 1 second on the google.

    1. Re:www.zerba.com by theblondebrunette · · Score: 1, Funny

      zerba.nl is a shop for women's and men's shoes and such.. I don't see how it's related to kdawson, the article poster..

      dawson.com is a construction company.. while dawson.nl while taken, has no web page, at least not at www.dawson.nl).

      Careful with construction companies.. they work with lots of cement :)

    2. Re:www.zerba.com by Bad+Ad · · Score: 1, Funny

      I dont think ive ever seen a more fitting username on slashdot.

    3. Re:www.zerba.com by maestro371 · · Score: 1

      Batzerto was the submitter.

      kdawson is a Slashdot administrator.

    4. Re:www.zerba.com by JPLemme · · Score: 1

      kdawson posted this to the main page. Batzerto is the person with the domain issue.

    5. Re:www.zerba.com by repvik · · Score: 1

      You can't be much of a brunette... Do you think it could possibly be related to Batzerba, who wrote the article that kdawson approved?

    6. Re:www.zerba.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article was posted by Batzerto. A search for Batzerto reveals the name of Tobin Zerba.

      Zerba.com is a personal website.

      We'll forgive you, you're a blonde :)

    7. Re:www.zerba.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site (zerba.nl) uses nothing but Flash and has music that can't be controlled. I say send them back through the hellmouth.

    8. Re:www.zerba.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.zerba.us is mine, mwahahahahahhahahaha !!!!!

  11. dear slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A lonely girl has sent me an email seeking a relationship. I am a man and this sounds good. Should I seek to get into a relationship with this unknown but self admitted pretty girl?

    1. Re:dear slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      See if you can trust her first. Send her all your bank account info, and see what happens.

    2. Re:dear slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is she from Russia?

      Hans.

    3. Re:dear slashdot by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't matter. If he gets married, it's the same thing only slower.

      --
      John
    4. Re:dear slashdot by wharlie · · Score: 1

      You lucky dog.
      Of course you should,
      and send her cash to cover her expenses to immigrate.

    5. Re:dear slashdot by Ulic · · Score: 0

      Is she offering to pay you up to $19k USD for the relationship?

    6. Re:dear slashdot by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm a Nigerian prince that needs to transfer some money. I'll give you 10% of the funds if you help me.

      (P.S. This is completely legit.)

    7. Re:dear slashdot by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      And more legal.
      If she steals his money in the first case, he might be able to sue to get it back.

      In the second case, if he sues, he might end up losing more....

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    8. Re:dear slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better, yet offer to sell her Viagra and see if she buys any; If she does she either really cares about you and wants to give you a gift, or she just wants to give you her package. Either way, you are in for some interesting dates.

  12. That's not necessarily the sentiment by danaris · · Score: 1

    Not at all.

    It isn't at all unreasonable to be willing to sell a domain you own to someone with more use for it.

    However, there have been some prominent instances in which a domain owner was successfully sued for control of the domain on the basis that they were willing to accept money for it, and thus, they were just domain-squatters.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  13. Or you could NOT be a SOB by Mobius+Ring · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If all you are using it for is email... ask yourself just how sensitive the info you email is.

    If it's just jokes and crap like that, or even if it is mailing list... why worry to much. Sell it to them with the requirement that you still keep your email address. Even if it is just a redirect.

    ---

    Of course, if there are confidential emails or stuff that would be FYOS appropriate (or that could cause legal problems)... don't do the "keep your email address" part.

    Either way... both these options should have been obvious, so it seems that you just want someone to justify your already made decision for you...

    you gonna tell us what you are trying to have justified?

    --
    When those around you are loosing their heads while you are keeping yours, maybe you've misunderstood the situatiuation.
  14. Consider an escrow service by MindCore1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they do give you an offer that you like and you wish to sell, I would recommend using an escrow service. This will protect you from being scammed out of your domain name and getting the agreed amount. Unfortunately, most escrow services aren't cheap as they usually take a percentage of the selling price or have some graded-scale based on the sell price.

  15. Well this is easy by areusche · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just charge an arm and a leg for the address. Check to see if you can pull a six figure price for the domain. Seriously go for it!

  16. Cybersquatting by Chyeld · · Score: 1

    Read this, and then decide if you really want to be greedy and take the risk or take the high road and just attempt to recoup your costs.

    If you are going to be greedy, prepare and talk to a lawyer.

  17. Re:Dear Slashdot, by ribit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Or Dear Slashdot: How can I ensure I receive fair market value when selling my domain?

    Really, the buyer should have used an anonymous offer service such as the Network Solutions 'Domain Name Certified Offer Service':
    http://www.networksolutions.com/domain-name-registration/certified-offer.jsp

    (I recently sold chrysler-dodge-jeep.com this way, turned out it was just a dealer, not the corp..

  18. This is easy... by mpapet · · Score: 1

    First, think about the likely effort there will be in case the sale is made. If it is more than a one-man shop there will be legal-eese to read.

    Second, ask for a draft agreement that transfers the domain. Don't make any demands, and make them feel at ease. The document they send should make you feel at ease for working with them. If it doesn't just say no thanks.

    Third, never mention a price. You are at a perpetual disadvantage if you do. A serious disadvantage. "Higher" and "You've got yourself a deal" are the *only* communications you should have.

    From here, it's easy to get screwed, so there are some ways to ensure you get _some_ money out of them even if they would like to screw you. I've seen it before for even the littlest thing. I'll take a 5% commission to explain the rest. post a reply to my post with contact info.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  19. !Trap by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    Seems like I've heard similar horror stories of people losing their domains because they asked someone to make an offer.

    The company has already made an inquiry into purchasing the domain, asking them to make an offer to test their level of interest wouldn't apply. Cold calling them & asking them to make an offer certainly might trip trademark issues, but responding to a legitimate inquiry shouldn't.

    Most of the issues I've heard about were either typo-squatters, or people who had a parked site collecting revenue from people looking for the companies website.

    1. Re:!Trap by Jaysyn · · Score: 0

      http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

      That guy was using his last name as well. Didn't go so well for him.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:!Trap by Fozzyuw · · Score: 1

      http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

      That guy was using his last name as well. Didn't go so well for him.

      Not sure why it's linking to Digest.com, other than trying to drive traffic to one's site, but here's the actual link

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    3. Re:!Trap by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Most likely it is so the story can survive hard links if his namesake site goes down because of the litigation.

      It they would have taken Nisson.com from him, all links to the site about the story would have broken. This way, it remains in history for all to see as long as he pays his bill or however it is arranged with digest.com.

  20. zerba.com by maf212 · · Score: 1

    I assume this person is talking about www.zerba.nl looking to purchase www.zerba.com?

    --
    --Note to self. Add witty sig here, someday...
  21. Get a right of first refusal on re-use by davidwr · · Score: 1

    When you sell it, put in a clause saying it can only be used for certain purposes for the next 5 years without your permission.

    This way, if they sell it to a speculator or change their business to something other than their current business, you can demand more $$$ or regain control of the name.

    Have some sliding scale for a buyout: If they sell it to a speculator today, they have to pay you $1M before putting the name to any other use, but nothing if they let the domain be paid-up but unused. If they do it in 5 years, $0, anything in between, on a pro-rata basis. If they are a legitimate, they shouldn't have a problem with this.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  22. When the check clears (6+ weeks).. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1
    take the $$$ and run! But wait 6+ weeks for the check to clear. This may be a scam. I don't care what their current domain is. That's easy to fake or get.

    Unless you're making more doing what you're doing - which I seriously doubt!

    Yes, I'm not kidding. In day and age of computers, it takes at least 6 weeks for a check to COMPLETELY clear. Don't believe me? Next time you get one of those unsolicited checks in the mail because you've been chosen as a secret shopper, won a contest that you've never entered, or whatever, deposit it and wait. You'll see.

    The backing system likes it that way. It just pisses me off that when I pay a bill, they know down to the fucking second what I have in my account so that they can charge me fees, but when _I_ have a problem - "Oh no sir! It takes six to eight weeks to straighten this out! We have to 'investigate'."

    OH! BTW!!! Do NOT send them ANY CASH! I don't care what their method!!! If they ask for a cash refund of ANY SORT - THEY ARE A CROOK - NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!

    1. Re:When the check clears (6+ weeks).. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do people actually still use cheques? I find this hard to believe.

  23. Keep control by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    See how much they really want it. Offer to add a link to them on your site ("This is NOT Example, Inc. Their website is http://www.company.example/") or, if it you're not using it for web hosting, see if they'd be happy with a redirect. As a general idea, if you lose nothing, ask for nothing in return.

    Then, you're not seeking money for their name, but you're also not denying them outright.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  24. Why? by jesterzog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they fail to triple their offer, begin redirecting to goatse. You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

    If you wanted to be really evil and as much of a bastard as a typical domain squatter for some reason, then sure. But why? By doing what you've suggested, you also end up polluting Slashdot, CNN and Google with crap, which is no better than your average link spammer.

    There are many domains which people own that they're not particularly attached to and would be happy to sell. For someone looking in from outside, it's reasonable to think that this might be one of them, particularly if it's not immediately clear that the person's using it. (Lack of a website would imply this to some people.)

    All they've done so far is politely ask if they can buy it. The request was short on words but that looks more like translation issues rather than an angry demand to hand over from a corporation full of lawyers. It could just as easily be someone's small family business which thought it'd be useful to have .com on the end of their name. How else are they supposed to find out if the owner's interested in selling if not by asking?

    1. Re:Why? by skaet · · Score: 1

      And the voice of reason speaks up. Nice one, mate. If I had mod points...

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've recently sent a very similar letter to someone who owned, but did not seem to be using a domain I was interested in. Turns out he was entertaining offers for the domain - still don't know if I'll be able to acquire it.

    3. Re:Why? by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the voice of reason speaks up.

      It doesn't appear to be that hard to be reasonable, does it? I really must try it sometime.

      But seriously, I would negotiate a price and probably ask nicely if I can keep an email address on that domain for a while. It's no real hassle for the other side's servers, unless you're getting multi-gigabytes of spam a day. Then at least you've got a good period of time to phase out that address.

      Or keep the MX records for your domain and sub-let the www section out to them for $200/year. That way everything essentially just stays the same for you, and they get a .com webpage.

      Plenty of options if everyone's talking nicely at the table.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Why? by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      You sure used a lot of words to argue against something said tongue-in-cheek. Humor not your strong point?

    5. Re:Why? by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      It was displaying as +5 Insightful when I posted my reply and the tone of it was fairly consistent with the other early responses to the article. The Insightful point(s) seem to be gone now so presumably the person or people who modded it that way went and posted something in the story and had their moderations deleted.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they've done so far is politely ask if they can buy it. The request was short on words but that looks more like translation issues rather than an angry demand to hand over from a corporation full of lawyers.

      You've got to realize that it is a Dutch company; this short message should indeed be regarded as being 'polite', while we're known for our bluntness in communications.

  25. Sales 101 by Kagato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell them you'll entertain offers. If they throw out a number, it can only go up. If you throw out a number, it can only go down.

    1. Re:Sales 101 by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

      If they throw out a number, it can only go up. If you throw out a number, it can only go down.

      Excellent wisdom!

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:Sales 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they throw out a number, it may not go too much higher. If you throw out a number, it may not go down much. Might as well start high. Anchoring can be effective when negotiating a one-time deal such as this.

    3. Re:Sales 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell them you'll entertain offers. If they throw out a number, it can only go up. If you throw out a number, it can only go down.

      it sounds insightful, but you keep your silence-- I'll be happy to set the anchor:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

      sure, if I say $10,000, it will only go down, and if you say $2,000, it will only go up.

      But if I get to set the anchor, the final sale will be closer to $10,000 than if you get to set it at $2,000.

  26. definitely shady by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Yeah dude, I think I smell wire fraud. He didn't even greet you by your name. Presumably, the guy should have done a whois. Smells like a nigerian scam.

  27. DON'T!!! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    It's a trap. You'll wind up without your domain OR any cash for it. Ask a lawyer.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  28. Why would he have to? by Junta · · Score: 1

    If it comes in unencrypted, anyone could have intercepted it anyway.

    If it comes in encrypted, then no loss of privacy.

    If a company is setting up a web presence and can't do reliable email, that would be unfortunate.

    If he is able to change email addresses, the 'old' address may be a '.forward' only sort of mail for transition anyway.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Why would he have to? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      A lot of people seem to be forgetting ESMTP with TLS. The message itself isn't encrypted as such, but the whole session it's transmitted in is (after STARTTLS, anyway). It's normally transparent to the user, when it's present at all. It's becoming more and more common (though not common enough IMO).

      Normally I don't bring it up. But in this case, it would be one reason for the traffic to be encrypted, but still readable by the other company. But you (and others) are right about the possibility of setting up a forward account.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  29. Offer to Post Link by Deton8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As others have noted, offering to sell your domain to them can be used as evidence of bad faith if there is other evidence you are cybersquatting. However, you can write them a letter and say you aren't really interested in selling the domain, what with the heavy email use you've been making with it for years, but if they request it you will put a link on the front page which says "Looking for Zerba the fashion designer? Click: www.zerba.nl" You could also offer to forward email to specific accounts to them if applicable -- in my case I have the dot-com for a name which some bloodsucking lawyer has the dot-net for, and people are forever sending me his mail. I have set up auto-forwards for all the accounts that seem popular at his office (so that I'm not accused of looking at private legal mail).

    1. Re:Offer to Post Link by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      But if that's so, then how come those transactions (for example, the money paid for pizza.com) where some domain was bought by a company, could happen?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:Offer to Post Link by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Really it would be better to autoreply to the mail so that the people could correct their addressbook entries.

    3. Re:Offer to Post Link by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Pizza isn't trademarked.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Offer to Post Link by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I completely overlooked that aspect of the equation. What if the domain name is the owner's family or first name?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Offer to Post Link by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Then they might have a defence against trademark infringement. If the company wants to throw lawyers at them anyway, they might not be able to afford to fight it, and if they're using the domain in bad faith (nothing but a page of ads, passing their page off as the company, or using it purely to badmouth the company), that defence might not work.

  30. Mod parent up! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    What you need to do is a background check on them. "Looks legitimate" is a pretty naive way of thinking.

    1. Re:Mod parent up! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, she says she's pretty. Why would she lie?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, it says it's a girl. Why would it lie?

    3. Re:Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, it says it's a girl. Why would it not lie? Fixed it for you.

    4. Re:Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She didn't say she was honest...

    5. Re:Mod parent up! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Why?

      No one ever lies online.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  31. And why did *you* own chrysler-dodge-jeep.com? by billstewart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you were a car dealer or specialized repair shop, then it may have been reasonable for you to own a domain using several of their trademarks. That's certainly too broad a set of categories to be a likely hobbyist organization. Sounds like you were cybersquatting.

    That's a different case from acquiring generic names (which can be rather dubious as well), and a much different case from what the main article was about, which is somebody who owns a domain that's based on his own name.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:And why did *you* own chrysler-dodge-jeep.com? by ribit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have only suggested a couple of examples of fair use... there's plenty more. Mine was editorial-related. I produce an online automotive industry magazine and started to buy related domain names in case I wanted to expand into brand-specific publications. Sometimes acquiring relevant domain names can be the spark to finding a new market niche or convincing a potential business partner that a new publication idea will fly. Not all of them pan out, so I was prepared to sell in this case.

  32. Changing your mail...a PITA by Atticka · · Score: 1

    Changing your email can be a pain in the butt if you've been using it for a long time (how many services, sites and friends will you have to update?).

    Although if the price is right, that could help ease the pain.

    --
    No sig here...
  33. could be legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this happened to me about 3 years ago - I sold the domain (.com) to them for $23,000 through an escrow service and promptly registered the .us version. Turns out it was a company in Europe with a similar, though not exactly the same, name. I think they were trying to mitigate typo-squatting.

  34. 'trap' - perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell the responder that everything has a price.

    (I helped sell a domain for $5000 and one that started at $70 as the initial offer and the final offer was $500,000.00)

  35. DNS is your friend by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep it, but offer to lease DNS records to them. Basically, rent "www IN A ....." while keeping control of the domain itself.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:DNS is your friend by kisa2000 · · Score: 1

      Never happen. I recently purchased a domain from someone who has my companies .com namesake for around US $4k. Prior to the transaction, the owner offered to lease the domain to me, and we refused outright. The reason is of course, who wants to build a brand around a domain name, (hopefully) get a whole bunch of traffic going to your site, and then in 2-4 years, when the lease runs out, have the domain owner either (i) increase the rent by 1000x or worse, (ii) offer to put it on the market. Developing businesses and website traffic is hard - I would be really surprised if they want to give you the opportunity to bend them over the barrel in a few years and get the vaseline out.

    2. Re:DNS is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will never go for it.

    3. Re:DNS is your friend by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      and then in 2-4 years, when the lease runs out, have the domain owner either (i) increase the rent by 1000x or worse, (ii) offer to put it on the market.

      In the business world, 99-year leases are common.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  36. No, not likely by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Legal proceedings are expensive, lengthy, and not guaranteed. Thus a company would rather pay a reasonable sum to just get what they want, rather than have a fight. If you make them a reasonable offer, maybe a grand or two for your trouble, they'll likely accept.

    The company my father used to work for went through this. They wanted a domain that a guy had. So they contacted him and offered him $10,000. They figured, as it was just a personal site, that he'd jump at it. It was an easy way to get what they wanted, and not a lot of money in the scheme of a company's operations. However, the guy decided that he wanted millions. Well, then they took him to court and won. However it probably cost them over $10,000 in legal fees.

    So, if you respond with something like "Yes I'd be willing to sell my domain. However, there is going to be some inconvenience in dealing with a transition. So if you'd agree to $2000 to cover my expenses, I'd be happy to sell." I'd bet they go for it. That's not expensive to a company, and it makes everything real easy.

    1. Re:No, not likely by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

      I agree with parent post, but you should be certain to cite your reasonable and legal use of the domain (for personal email) in your response to them. Make sure they pay for the legal expenses of producing an internationally binding contract, and get the money passed through a standard intermediary that holds the money in trust until you deliver the domain address.

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    2. Re:No, not likely by tsalmark · · Score: 4, Informative

      In all correspondence I'd use the term transfer in place of sell.

    3. Re:No, not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To even start the claim with ICANN, the initial fee is $3,000. Of course, that's not including the expensive lawyer fees, so usually a company would rather pay $3,000 or less to the owner of the domain name rather than start proceedings. Although, if the company has a lawyer on retainer, it may be worth it for them to use the opportunity to acquire the domain name through legal proceedings to "set an example" for others that may think of squatting on a domain name related to their business.

    4. Re:No, not likely by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So, it is as the consensus of the comments suggest. If you sell it for inconvenience money, then they will probably pay the money and go away. If you choose not to sell it for a price they wish to pay, then they may take you to court. If you were foolish enough to fall into their trap and offer to sell, then they will use this to take away your property even if you don't wish to sell it.

      What people don't seem to understand is that really, in the scheme of things, if I own something it is mine. The legal system should protect that. If I don't want to sell it, then I don't, in most cases, have to. One way of saying I don't want to sell it is to offer it for an insane amount of money.

      Taking used to be used primarily for government sponsored project. Now it is used because some random company thinks that just because they can make money with a property, they should own it. This is why this question came up, and why the guy should try to protect himself. It is your domain name, fair in square. Even if you are squatting, there is a element of possession being nine tenth of the law. As the parent indicate, there are people who will do anything to take things that they want, unless the owner is willing to accept a token amount to 'voluntarily surrender the property'. This is not good. Sure, maybe trademarks need to be protected, but if my name is Coke, is there some fundamental reason why the beverage company has a higher claim on it than I do? If I had the foresight to register the domain, should I not be allowed to profit off that foresight? Is there something in the free market that one is allowed to make money unless it pisses off the multinationals?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:No, not likely by fmobus · · Score: 1

      I want to believe something is missing on your anecdote. The original owner should be free to decide if he wants to sell it and the price. Unless he is obviously squatting (think Pepsi squatting coke.com), which does not seem to be the case in both your anecdote and the blurb. Any price should be safe if the OP can prove that: a) he is actually using the domain, b) the domain is related to his activities/identity, c) the other part showed interest in buying before the his offer.

    6. Re:No, not likely by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, maybe trademarks need to be protected, but if my name is Coke, is there some fundamental reason why the beverage company has a higher claim on it than I do?

      Yes: supreme power. In the end, that's the only thing that truly matters. Everything else is just philosophy, which is fine as long as everyone plays along nicely; but when it goes down to a fight, might wins over right.

      Is there something in the free market that one is allowed to make money unless it pisses off the multinationals?

      "Free market" is also free in the sense that the 500-pound gorillas are free to squeeze you underfoot. That's why I lean towards socialism myself; a single gorilla - the government - is easier to handle and if necessary distract than the small number of King Kong corporations of libertarianism or the endless hordes of rampaging killer apes of anarchism.

      Yes, I'm very cynical.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:No, not likely by moortak · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine used to actually receive angry letters from a major soft drink company due to name similarities. After she calmly pointed out that, not only is it her name, she had registered her domain prior to them registering theirs. After that they backed off and she still has her site.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    8. Re:No, not likely by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine used to actually receive angry letters from a major soft drink company due to name similarities.

      I, too, am friends with Ronald C. Cola.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    9. Re:No, not likely by LordActon · · Score: 1

      Taking used to be used primarily for government sponsored project. Now it is used because some random company thinks that just because they can make money with a property, they should own it.

      Fooey. Companies have fought over trademarks since there were trademarks. Being sued for one is nothing new. If you don't believe me, cf. http://www.american.edu/ted/budweis.htm, and ask Budejovicky Budvar about "Budweiser".

    10. Re:No, not likely by moortak · · Score: 1

      no it was a slightly newer company than coke i just don't feel that her site is really suited to handle a slashdotting

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    11. Re:No, not likely by Geminii · · Score: 1

      "But ten thousand? It is a _civilised_ amount."

  37. You need more info. by HAQattaq · · Score: 1

    Get more information. Ask what their company does, who you are speaking with, etc.. I would negotiate from there.

    --
    If you can't spot the sucker in the first 5 minutes of playing,then you are the sucker.
  38. Check whether they're legitimate first by billstewart · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Check out how long they've had the .nl name, and look at their web pages to see if they appear to be legitimately in business first. If they've had the name for a while and seem to be doing something real, they're probably safe to deal with. On the other hand, if they registered the name last week and are in the "domain name services" business, they're probably scammers and you shouldn't even reply.

    (Your Slashdot article didn't have the domain name or your name in it, so I can't really tell.) Good luck!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Check whether they're legitimate first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that "Batzerto" writes this story and a google search for Batzerto leads one to Tobin "batzerto" Zerba's amazon page and zerba.com as well as zerba.nl exist and zerba.nl is some Dutch clothes shop, where the onlineshop as well as the news-section are still under construction, while zerba.com is a private site that doesn't seem to have been updated since 2005, I'd say that is the domain name.

  39. I had a good sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently sold my domain to a french company that reached me in a similar way. I told them i had no interest in selling the domain as I use it for personal and business reasons. I told them if they wanted to buy my company, then to make a reasonable offer (but again I had no interest in selling the domain at this time).

    They provided a very attractive offer and I did end up selling the domain. They simply redirect the .com to their french site. I got 6 months of email forwarding.

    My experience was good, but that does not seem to be what people here are saying...

    1. Re:I had a good sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, people here are talking out of their arseholes. If you get an informal approach like this, hiring a lawyer and going on the defensive is just throwing away your own money and likely to scare off any potential buyer. There's a reason why Nerds don't make good salesmen, and I think we're seeing it in a lot of the responses here.

  40. its the best kind of scam by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    like the nigerian 409 scams or the mystery shopper scams, they pray on people's own greed

    if someone thinks they will get paid for handing over the keys to their website, they will do it

    all good con jobs work precisely by exploiting humankind's dependable behavior of acting stupid when tempted by greed

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  41. Alternate domain by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1

    If you were to go through with it and sell the name to them (and certainly there are already posts debating the merits there), I would made sure that your alternate domain name would be available. It would be a shame if you wanted to get the .us variation on your name, and the company you sell your domain to also decides to buy it. It would also be a hassle if they asked you to sell them the .us variation three months down the road. It might be a reasonable part of a deal, to discuss the name you would use instead, so that they are clear on it.

  42. Squatting by arizwebfoot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if his name was Pinto or Ford, or Sasquatch, if he is legitimately using his domain - even for just email - then he is not squatting.

    This happens all the time when a company is looking to increase it's brand name in some way. So say your name is Tesla and you have a hobby in model railroading and you have a url that is www.teslarr or www.teslarailroad or some such thing. A company starts up, making railroad cars, their name is Tesla and they want to buy your domain name - happens all the time.

    For the OP, do some research and find out what others are selling (the real squatters) domain names for and that should give you a ball park.

    The other thing to consider is licensing your domain name to them - i.e. you keep the domain name and let them use it. Of course that all hinges of you being able to show email usage for some time so that you aren't accused of fraud.

    ----- There my six cents worth (two cents adjusted for inflation and the price of crude)

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
  43. Keep the domain name by zchang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may be using it for email now, but who's to say whether you or any of your relations will develop some sort of product in the future that can be marketed via your .com address. It is, after all, your own name so you have sufficient right to hold the address without anyone accusing you of cyber squatting.

    Similarly, there's a chance that the company will grow much larger in the future and their buy out offer will increase. Consider it an investment.

    Simply add a redirect link at the top of the page. "Perhaps you were looking for company X? They can be found at [their URL]."

  44. Be smart by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you only use the email then
    keep the MX record pointed on you server.

    An the rent them the domain for there web server.

  45. Talking of Googlebombing... by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    Julie Moult is an idiot.

    Full story at the first link Google gives.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  46. The lawyers are not completely to blame. by richardkelleher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lawyers do not get involved unless they are invited, but, there is always a lawyer who will take any stupid case that some idiot brings to their door.

    1. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by antijava · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought that was vampires.

    2. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      Same thing.

      --
      John
    3. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by electricbern · · Score: 0

      exactly

      --
      alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
    4. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only real difference is the stakes involved...

    5. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Oh your joke is killing me!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by pieterh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, mods may give you -1, but I LOLd. Thanks.

    7. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by richardkelleher · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I didn't know they could mod you -1 for a bad (but funny) pun...

    8. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by joocemann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lawyers do not get involved unless they are invited, but, there is always a lawyer who will take any stupid case that some idiot brings to their door.

      .. No... you're wrong. They are completely to blame, along with the judicial system that permits their heinous exploits.

    9. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by richardkelleher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, you are saying that lawyers get involved even if they have no client to represent? Do they magically appear in conference calls or email threads, show up at meetings for which they have no prior knowledge? They must be powerful wizards to do such things! We must fear and respect them for they are our masters!!!

    10. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They could (and should) have the decency to turn down ridiculous cases, or not turn mole hills into mountains. That would nip a lot of these cases in the bud right there. I don't see it happening though with the high number of practicing lawyers in this country, the reason that we have so many ridiculous class action suits is because too many lawyers don't have better things to do.

      Law is probably the only line of work where the people working in the field answer only to themselves (because judges and elected officials come mostly from within the ranks), so expecting an outside observer to shake things up is a waste of time.

    11. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Call the RIAA. i'm sure you'll find all the answers you need. Especially the desire to fear.

    12. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      Lawyers do not get involved unless they are invited, but, there is always a lawyer who will take any stupid case that some idiot brings to their door.

      Only stupid cases that appear to have green potential. No green potential, no case.

    13. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the 'overrated' mod. Guess you didn't get it.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Please, please, refrain from calling it a "judicial system." Doing so implies that there will be justice, when, in fact, all that exists is a system whereby flawed individuals can incessantly argue esoteric points and win the argument by impressing a small group of 12 semi-literate people who have nothing better to do than sit and listen to them.

    15. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      To do so would deny equal and unfettered access to the legal system.

      It is the job of the attorney to be an advocate for a client, not to be the gatekeepers of greedy bastards and dumbasses. That's society's job, and by extension, Congress'.

      the reason that we have so many ridiculous class action suits is because too many lawyers don't have better things to do.

      Trust me when I say there is no shortage of work for lawyers. Ever. We'd all thank you for starting fewer legal fights and clogging the courts.

      Law is probably the only line of work where the people working in the field answer only to themselves

      As opposed to? Are we forgetting juries and elections, or are you just conceding that everybody else is too stupid to do anything about it?

      That's like saying cops only investigate themselves, or that doctors are the only ones who can really check each other's work. It may have intuitive appeal, but it's short-sighted and unrealistic.

    16. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by scubamage · · Score: 1

      +5 for luls!

    17. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by gosand · · Score: 1

      Lawyers do not get involved unless they are invited, but, there is always a lawyer who will take any stupid case that some idiot brings to their door.

      Just yesterday I read a story on a motorcycle forum... a guy was on a ride on a twisting road, rode it too aggressively, and ended up crashing in a ditch. Someone replied with a story about their crash, and how while lying there on the ground, someone tried to stick a lawyer's card in his pocket. Gypsy crash, look at response #18

      Of course, there are good lawyers out there, and they ARE needed... but there's just this "dark side" to their profession.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    18. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      the reason that we have so many ridiculous class action suits is because too many lawyers don't have better things to do.

      Trust me when I say there is no shortage of work for lawyers. Ever. We'd all thank you for starting fewer legal fights and clogging the courts.

      If there is no shortage of work, than there is probably no need to chase ambulances to drum up more business. There's probably no need to seek out plaintiffs so that you can form class-action suits. There may be no shortage of work, but all work doesn't pay at the same rate.

      Law is probably the only line of work where the people working in the field answer only to themselves

      As opposed to? Are we forgetting juries and elections, or are you just conceding that everybody else is too stupid to do anything about it?

      That's like saying cops only investigate themselves, or that doctors are the only ones who can really check each other's work. It may have intuitive appeal, but it's short-sighted and unrealistic.

      It's actually not at all like saying that cops are the only ones that investigate themselves and only doctors check each other's work, because I'm saying that only lawyers get that privilege. I'm specifically saying that it seems like all other fields of work answer in large part to people outside their field, and your response is that it's like I'm saying the exact opposite.

      Internal Affairs cops investigate other cops, but if you feel like you were mistreated by the police it goes to court and the outcome is in large part determined by lawyers and judges (who are mostly ex-lawyers). Doctors are regulated by medical boards that are largely composed of other doctors, but if you feel like a doctor screwed up your procedure than a malpractice suit is probably the next step and it's not doctors deciding the outcome of that suit. But if you feel like a lawyer messed up in your representation or that the procedures that were followed in the course of your trial were wrong, than your appeal is most likely going to be in the hands of judges who used to be lawyers. It's certainly not going to end up on a ballot, voting is at best a distant and indirect participant.

      I realize that not all lawyers are "on the same team", so this isn't some grand conspiracy. But I do believe that people that work in the same industry have lines of thinking and perspectives that tend to more often skew the same way, and the fact that one field has almost no external checks and balances seems like it's not going to be a good thing in the long run. What are the odds of tort reform and reform of class-action lawsuit fees being passed by lawmakers that used to be lawyers and determined to be valid by judges that used to be lawyers? not as high as they should be, imo.

    19. Re:The lawyers are not completely to blame. by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      If there is no shortage of work, than there is probably no need to chase ambulances to drum up more business.

      Agreed. What's your point?

      It's actually not at all like saying that cops are the only ones that investigate themselves and only doctors check each other's work, because I'm saying that only lawyers get that privilege.

      And I'm saying that that statement is as misguided as the other propositions. In other words, it's not true that lawyers enjoy any such privilege.

      But if you feel like a lawyer messed up in your representation or that the procedures that were followed in the course of your trial were wrong, than your appeal is most likely going to be in the hands of judges who used to be lawyers.

      And once again, you're forgetting the jury when you make that claim and jumping ahead to the statistically unlikely result that an appeal is granted. And like the internal affairs cops and the medical review boards, there are lawyers for that, too. If after all that you feel that all the lawyers are out to get you, you can have you case removed to an independent arbitration firm--professional mediators who are usually not attorneys.

      But I do believe that people that work in the same industry have lines of thinking and perspectives that tend to more often skew the same way

      How? Lawyers work both sides of every issue and specialize in disparate fields--a securities lawyer is nothing like an immigration lawyer.

      one field has almost no external checks and balances seems like it's not going to be a good thing in the long run.

      The idea that it's "one field" is your problem. Congress and the legal system are at odds at least as often as they're in sync. The idea that Congress is "mostly" composed of lawyers is also just plain false.

      There are about 150 barred individuals in the House of Representatives--roughly one-third. The rest are doctors, accountants, business professionals, banking/finance, professors, and other professionals. Congress and practicing attorneys hate each other, and Congress is elected by everyone. If there's a problem, vote them out and replace them. That a substantial people who have to write laws should know the realities of practicing law only helps the quality of those laws (and they still can't get it right half the time). The ABA has to lobby Congress just like everyone else. The idea that there is any self-serving oversight interest confined to lawyers is simply asinine.

      If you think there's a "bad" lawyer and you can't have him sanctioned in court, can't have him investigated by the bar, and can't convince your fellow citizens to stop giving him business...the more likely result is that he's not that bad.

      Quite frankly, lawyers have a high level of self-interest in removing disreputable members of their profession. The idea that their inability to weed out the bad ones is any worse than police departments, corporations, hospitals, or financial firms is misguided and offensive. I'm always game for a good lawyer joke, but the composition of the bar is not any more or less corrupt than the society in which it sits.

      There's always an external check: you. Fire your lawyer if you think he's a scumbag, and file a complaint with the ABA and/or state bar. Talk to a different lawyer about finding someone to represent you in actions against the scumbag if the transgression is so serious.

  47. Squatting is relative by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    How the f*ck can be considered a domain name squatter if the domain carries his own name ??

    IANAL, but if I were, I would think of some argument.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  48. No need to be....... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ......a dick.

    Seriously. We all complain about the bullshit that surrounds us on a daily basis here at /. yet we see posts like the 1st one up. I am hoping he was being funny/sarcastic (as he was properly modded).

    Try being the good guy, write them an HONEST email explaining your concerns, and ask them for a reasonable offer. You will always retain the right to reject (unless you foolishly give it away). So, what have you got to lose by being honest about things up front? IF, and I emphasize, IF, it ends up in a courtroom, you will have already scored some points in that you will be able to prove a good-faith effort to remedy the situation.

    While I can agree with the "talk to a lawyer" suggestions, to some extent, I do feel that lawyers are sometimes wholly unnecessary and are merely a moneypit. Send the email, get a response, and then decide whether or not a lawyer is called for. And don't forget your gut. It talks to you. Listen.

    1. Re:No need to be....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says I'm hungry...
      Should I get a lawyer?

    2. Re:No need to be....... by dkf · · Score: 1

      It says I'm hungry...
      Should I get a lawyer?

      Better to get some shark. They're closely related, but taste better.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:No need to be....... by erple2 · · Score: 1

      While I can agree with the "talk to a lawyer" suggestions, to some extent, I do feel that lawyers are sometimes wholly unnecessary and are merely a moneypit. Send the email, get a response, and then decide whether or not a lawyer is called for. And don't forget your gut. It talks to you. Listen.

      I disagree. My gut keeps telling me to eat more Krispy Kreme Donuts, and to drink more Ovaltine. And I don't think that I should be listening to it.

  49. Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response? by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser.

    If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either.

    If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them?

    This smells bad.

  50. crazy comments by moracity · · Score: 1

    So, if I own some property and the local government or developer want to buy it, I should just let them give me enough money to cover the mortgage?

    I see many comments here advising the OP to do exactly this. Those comments are moronic and anti-freedom in every way. I'm shocked that anyone on Slashdot would give this advice.

    The OP should decide how much money would be personally satisfying to let go of the domain. The owner should then do some research into the financials of the company. This person was approached for the possibility of completing a business transaction. It should be treated as such and due diligence should be performed before doing anything.

    What about the possibility of leasing use of the domain name? Or maybe a stake in the business? The domain clearly has some value to the company, otherwise they wouldn't have come forward.

    I think it's best to come up with your own figure before even looking at an offer. They have probably already established how much they are willing to pay.

  51. Don't take the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The email message you gave from the potential buyer looks to me like it's not for real. I'd say ignore it.

  52. Let Them Make the First Offer by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    They're the ones who want it. They're the ones with some value attached to it. Let them make an offer to you.

    Turn it down. See what they offer next.

    Why should you "negotiate against yourself" by setting the values, when you don't know how much they can afford for the value they will receive that they can't get anywhere else?

    For that matter, why am I explaining this to you for free? Dammit.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  53. AD REVENUE! by dkarma · · Score: 1

    Tell them that you want 10% of the ad revenue that the domain generates and they can have it for free! Tell them that is a one-time offer and if they refuse that tell them the asking price is at least one of your year's salary. I'd rather have the percentage though...that means a check every month instead of once.

  54. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by poptaart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually the style of the email and the grammatical errors are very Dinglish. (Dutch + English). Especially the closing and the way he signed his full (first initial last name). Most dutch people rarely include their full first name in correspondence, usually using only their first few initials. This is proper business etiquette. On the flip side, in the news, the first name last initial is commonly used to "anonymously" name suspected criminals who want to stay anon, for example Ali G.

    Seeing as he comes from .nl - at least that part is legit.

  55. sell it. This kind of thing happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had the same thing happen to me a few years ago. You may be interested in asking for details about the company to verify that the request is valid.

    In my case, I was contacted by the lawyer of the company, who arranged for the sale. I sold it for $5k, and I'm sure I could have asked for more (they accepted the offer immediately). A third party can hold the funds until the transfer is made, but in my case, they just sent the money and I was good enough not to steal it. :)

    I don't think you can be approached on squatting charges. If you aren't attached to the domain and the request seems valid, ask for 10k and see what happens.

  56. Don't Name a Price-That's the Trap! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    If you name a price and they have a legitimate claim (e.g. trademark etc. not even in this country) - especially if you aren't using the name for a valid purpose already - then you can easily lose through WIPO for domain-squatting. Even if they make you a ridiculously low-ball insulting offer and you counter you can lose your domain this way with no compensation at all.

    Your safest course of action is to continue to use the domain for a legitimate purpose that does not in any way attempt to make money off of anyone who types in your domain .COM instead of theirs .NL. Tell them you're not interested and let them raise their offer until it does interest you - but never counteroffer back. Just go along your way until the right thing happens.

    Be aware that this person contacting you may also be a domain name broker who intends to buy low and sell high, cutting you out of all the profits for being a nice guy. You don't really know.

    This whole domain name thing is fucked in the first place. It started as first-come-first-served and should have remained that way. But then big money got involved and changed the rules to suit themselves and screw out the little guy with more brains and foresight than the dinosaur companies had. Now it's highly tilted in their direction and you really have to toe the line on the rules or you'll end up with nothing!

    And be exceptionally vigilant not to let your registration lapse for even 5 minutes. Expired domains are immediately snapped up and you may have to pay extortion to get it back again.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  57. Tell that to Uzi Nissan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can email him at uzi@nissan.com. Oh wait, no you can't, because he lost nissan.com when he was accused of cybersquatting his own name.

    1. Re:Tell that to Uzi Nissan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly -- he still has it: nissan.com

      Though it does sound like he went through hell to keep it, and has to accept restrictions on what he can do with it.

      for more

    2. Re:Tell that to Uzi Nissan by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      You can email him at uzi@nissan.com. Oh wait, no you can't, because he lost nissan.com when he was accused of cybersquatting his own name.

      Except, of course, that he does still own the domain name; Nissan Motor lost the lawsuit.
      Perhaps you should have tried either (a) reading the webpage you yourself linked to, or (b) going to nissan.com and seeing what was there.

  58. Try to help them out by lakeland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think about it from their perspective. They're probably worried they're missing out on a small number of customers who inadvertantly go to your site instead of theirs.

    I would guess their lost revenue is low to very low, so don't get greedy. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives that could be worked out to make you both happy. Examples:

    A priminent link on your website to theirs would be my favourite - sell it to them as 'advertising space' or donate it if they seem nice and you can't be bothered collecting a few dollars.

    Offer to sell them a HTTP redirect service and keep the domain yourself.

    Sell them the www subdomain but keep the MX pointing to you.

    Sell them the domain and ask for an email alias.

    Think of it as a normal business transaction between two individuals. Bargain in good faith and you're not opening yourself up to much legally. Try to charge something outrageous and you're likely to fall foul of the squatter rules.

    1. Re:Try to help them out by krray · · Score: 1

      Try to charge something outrageous and you're likely to fall foul of the squatter rules.

      Your idea of outrageous and mine can be, and probably are, very different.
      I've had many offers for my 4 letter .com domain -- 99.9% of those have simply been ignored.
      It is my name and short of a $500,000 offer (up front) I won't transfer it. It is also registered through 2035 along with the .US version. Squatter rules? Try me. It was registered before the likes of Apple. :)

      Another domain that was in my control was my fathers name (and when it was registered our family business). When it was active (business good) there were many offers for it and my stock answer to all requests was US$1,000,000. That would cover the costs to reprint stationery, business cards, and deal with all the technical issues involved along with putting some money in my pocket.

      The spam level was through the roof for this domain (probably still is). When the business was closed I transferred all usage to the .US version of the same name (which I still hold). The .COM domain simply went silent and then I got an offer.

      It was a reasonable offer up front (IMHO) for $5,000 along with a name, address, and phone number to contact if I was interested. I called the gentleman and we spoke a few times on the phone working out the details (I am much more technically knowledgeable than he is). He sent me a check with a note in the memo along the lines of "purchase all rights to zzzz.com". The check cleared and I transferred the domain (and even hosted the DNS for almost 6 months until they go it all sorted out on his end).

      No third parties or attorney's had to get involved. It was in the phone conversations that we both developed the trust needed to move forward. We also discussed how to close the deal to make sure neither of us were trying to screw the other guy.

    2. Re:Try to help them out by Muros · · Score: 1

      How about a permanent link in exchange for some of their merchandise? Costs you nothing, costs them very little, and your wife will love the designer shoes.

  59. Sell the domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can sell the domain and also make a deal with them to have all your mail redirect to your new domain address. This will save you a lot of problems, and i bet they will accept this clause.

  60. Lease it to them? by Inglix+the+Mad · · Score: 1

    Heck, why not. Build a nice lease of the name for X years at a time (no less than 5) with it being revocable by either side every X years.

    Simple, effective, and let's you take it back if you really want it.

    --
    People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
  61. foo by wasabii · · Score: 1

    Ask a lawyer. Duh. That said, as a not-lawyer, I'd say don't ask for money. Just say you're using it as your last name and changing addresses would be a real issue. Say you conduct business over the email address. You've then established that you actually want the address. Let them make an offer.

  62. Play hard to get by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    I'd reply with the following:

    From: You
    Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:56 AM
    To: Mr. N. de Robles
    Subject: buy your trademark ?

    Dear Mr. Robles,

    For my personal use I need the trademark --- .
    Is it possible for me to buy your trademark so I can have it tattooed on my arse?

    Best Regards
    You

  63. This happened to me by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This happened to me back in 1999. Actually, it happened to me a lot, but 1999 was when I finally won the domain name lottery.

    I told him the same thing I tell everyone who asks: "Well, I'm not really looking to sell my domain name but feel free to make me an offer."

    He said, "I'll give you $5000."

    I said, "That's a reasonable offer, but I have both the .com and the .org and I'd want to sell them as a pair."

    He said, "Okay, I'll give you $5000 each."

    I said, "That's a very fair offer. I need to think about what it would take me to change my address and migrate everything off the name."

    A week later he called and asked for my decision. I said, "You made me a very fair offer. I'm still thinking it through. Give me a little more time."

    A few days later he called and asked for my decision. I said, "You made me a very fair offer. I'm still thinking it through. Give me a little more time."

    He said, "Look, I need to move forward, have graphics made for my business and so on. If you'll decide now, I'll double my offer."

    I said, "Give me one hour. I'll call you back in an hour."

    An hour later I said, "$20k? Done."

    Down payment on my house, right before the real estate market headed for the sky.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you paid capital gains taxes on that $20k, right? Right?

    2. Re:This happened to me by WesIey+Snipes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course I did.

    3. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looked like you are just a simple squatter.

    4. Re:This happened to me by houghi · · Score: 1

      It is nice to see that domain name squatting works.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:This happened to me by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      It is nice to see that domain name squatting works.

      What's wrong with you that you can't take pleasure in another's good fortune?

      For your information, the domain was a generic English word, the first one I registered from back in 1993, one of only 12 domains I held at the time and as it happens the one that I was using for my personal email and web site. I currently hold less, having sold the business associated with 6 of them, so the notion that I'm a domain squatter requires some serious sour grapes.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  64. Wait, couldn't they read all his email then? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    "You can sell the domain and also make a deal with them to have all your mail redirect to your new domain address."

    Ugh. So you're gonna have all your email routed through a mail server controlled by a third party in a different country? How does that sound like a good idea again?

    1. Re:Wait, couldn't they read all his email then? by TTuuoorr · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>"You can sell the domain and also make a deal with them to have all your mail redirect to your new domain address."</p><p>Ugh. So you're gonna have all your email routed through a mail server controlled by a third party in a different country? How does that sound like a good idea again?</p></quote>

      An MX-record in the DNS would fix that.
      All mail to lastname.com would be sent directly to YOUR mail server.

  65. Alternate hypothesis by rewt66 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe the sender is:
    - a person who does not have English as their first language, and/or
    - a techie?

    That would account for the rough grammar and the informality.

    I mean, seriously, if an IT guy from .NL wrote it, would you really expect it to read like an American lawyer wrote it?

    1. Re:Alternate hypothesis by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Also, they could be a small business, which would mean they might not be used to this kind of transaction.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    2. Re:Alternate hypothesis by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I mean, seriously, if an IT guy from .NL wrote it, would you really expect it to read like an American lawyer wrote it?

      Yeah, I would actually. But then I have this odd notion that professionals should be professional.

    3. Re:Alternate hypothesis by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Geachte Heer Lyons,

      Zou u zo vriendelijk willen zijn om uw commentaar in een andere taal dan uw moedertaal te geven. U zult daar zeker niet voor betaald worden, dus professioneel is het niet, maar het zou u wel het idee moeten geven dat de taakomschrijving van de meeste nederlandse techies geen onderdeel 'schrijven als een amerikaanse advokaat' bevat.

      IOW: it's an odd notion indeed.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    4. Re:Alternate hypothesis by adolf · · Score: 1

      Natuurlijk. Maar ik zou ook graag van uitgaan dat de potentiële koper is misschien een beetje meer verbose.

      Hoe komt u tot in de punt is een ding, maar de zeer pregnante karakter van deze brief maakt het lezen van spam, in plaats van een aanbod tot aankoop van iets.

      Dit doet me denken aan alle all ur bass are belong to us.

    5. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      The difference being, of course, that the GPP wrote actual Dutch, while the PP merely slapped down some babelfish-slop.

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    6. Re:Alternate hypothesis by adolf · · Score: 1

      Of course. I'm sure that my (Google's, rather) broken Dutch does detract from the content of my message, but then that really was the point that I was attempting to convey.

      It's important to communicate clearly, and in a language people understand. There's no reason to beat a topic to death, but there's also no reason to use wording which is so vague, broken, or succinct as to leave big, gaping questions for interested readers to try to figure out for themselves.

      Had the offer to buy the domain not been so terse, this Ask Slashdot would never have had to happen.

    7. Re:Alternate hypothesis by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Why is it an odd notion that professionals should sound professional? Writing your refutation in (I presume) Dutch is a meaningless party trick, not an actual answer.

    8. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod that up

    9. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it an odd notion that professionals should sound professional?

      "Lawyer speak" is pretty much the opposite of "sounding professional". Lawyers are professionals concerning the law and absolutely nothing else.

      The vast majority of business transactions do not have lawyers involved though many lawyers would dearly love to leech off every transaction on earth. Fuck 'em.

    10. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Fruit · · Score: 1
      First sentence should end in a question mark. "Advocaat" is not spelled with a k.

      But hey, maybe American lawyers can't spell either. :P

    11. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd expect him to at least introduce himself and his company.

    12. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most IT guys in the Netherlands are very good at (american) english. I even dream in english sometimes, after six years of english lectures and english IT books :-) That being said, one very useful piece of advice: NEVER fall into the appraisal trap. Most domain offers are just shady domain appraisal companies trying to sell you an expensive domain appraisal. If they really want the domain, let them make an offer. See what it is worth it too you and make a counter offer. Most of the times it will be accepted. With the current exchange rates it's probably worth it for you.

    13. Re:Alternate hypothesis by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      Actually the Dutch have a reputation for being very good at languages, particularly English. They're probably better than the average American. (Oh noes i'll *loose* karma for slagging the USians!)

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    14. Re:Alternate hypothesis by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Speaking English is a common phenomenon in The Netherlands. Most of them are fluent speakers.

    15. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      Honestly I'm not sure I can make out what the English input of that translation must've been :-)

      Anyway, it's terse, yes, and perhaps not written in the way of a formal American business email, but I think the original email said all that's necessary: you have this, can I buy it from you?

      If the recipient wants to verify this buyer, or he'll hear an offer, I'm sure the interested buyer will allow for more communication, which will hopefully dispel any vagueness.

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    16. Re:Alternate hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the sender is:
      - a person who does not have English as their first language, and/or
      - a techie?

      That would account for the rough grammar and the informality.

      I mean, seriously, if an IT guy from .NL wrote it, would you really expect it to read like an American lawyer wrote it?

      I agree it does look fishy - I'm sure anyone who wanted to sound convincing would have written a bit more about who they are, what they do and why they want the domain, even without having english as their first language (he does want a dot com though!) or being a techie -- I get spam which has a lot more collective thought than this email has!

      Seems like a mail bot to me.

  66. Lucky by mycroes · · Score: 1

    You're lucky it's not the other way round, you owning the .nl domain that a dutch company wants. I work at a company that wanted the .nl domain for their name and an individual had it registered. He didn't want to sell, but court decided it was ours and so now we have it... I think the other way around it will be a lot harder to force you to give up the domain...

  67. Get an Apprasial by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    There must be domain name appraisal services out there that can tell you the reasonable value of your domain. Then you have something to respond as in:

    Such & such company values my domain at $XXX,XXX.

    And be sure that the price includes a night or several with the model on their opening animation!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  68. Cover your bets by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

    Get a lawyer, make an offer (after discussing fees with the lawyer), document everything.

    That's the way its done.

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  69. Do the right thing AND get what you want. by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 1

    Personally, I would see a legitimate business use as more important than my personal email, but why not get both? Say you will sell it, if they continue to host your address for free. Very little cost to them, you can keep the address even just as a forwarder to your original. I did this before with a domain I bought in college. I thought it sounded really cool, and then a company with that name wanted it.

  70. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, all emails that start with a Dear Sir, seem to me like a Nigerian bank scam.

  71. How to deal with it. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    IANAL. This is not legal advice. You can't sell it without having an offer. Simply tell them you are using the domain because it is your personal, real name. Tell them you would entertain an offer directly from them for the domain, but it would have to be worthwhile due to the inconvenience of having to change everything. Make it clear that the name is not for sale to the public. This is clearly a case of private property and sidesteps the trademark issue.

    Also, should they try to file suit in a court, have a lawyer tell you if you can stop the court action by going for Arbitration via ICANN. That is much better for you, less expensive, and often more fair for the current domain owner.

    --
    -- $G
  72. I've done it; exact opposite, though by rfc1394 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Several years ago I registered a domain name for something I was trying which I was thinking about. Some guy, whose last name was the same as the domain I registered asked me if I'd be interested in selling it. Well, I needed the money so I quoted a reasonable offer. After the check cleared I did a change of the owner from me to him.

    I took his personal check because he was in the U.S., the rules are very different when it's an international transaction. (I once paid for a shareware registration to a guy in Canada using a personal check drawn on a U.S. bank, I presume Canadian banks have no problem handling those; but I wouldn't accept anything but a guaranteed payment for an international transaction.)

    Since the possibility of fraud is high when the buyer is outside the same country (on low value transactions where there's no money to chase them if you can't recover it), you make sure it's a guaranteed payment. I would suggest either wire transfer (and make sure the payment additionally includes your bank's incoming wire transfer fee) or Western Union for the same reason scammers use them: so the money is guaranteed and can't be revoked or a fraudulent transfer such as a forged check. Especially since the funds transfer is from a foreign country, it might cost you $30 or more to clear a check issued on a bank in some other country, presuming you don't get the check back in six or eight weeks as a forgery. If they want a written bill of sale or something, fine. But you get guaranteed payment before they get the domain.

    Another option if the amount of the sale is not over the limit: set up a new, fresh account using Paypal or Google Checkout that goes to a new checking account at a bank (other than the one you do business with now) that will allow you to open one with no monthly fee (and check the paperwork they give you, sometimes they sneak fees in there), then, once the transfer clears, take all the money out except a token amount ($1) in cash, and then deposit the cash in your other account. Or close the account as you no longer need it.

    This way, they can't undo the transaction and you've got the cash. Even if they try to reverse the transaction, the bank can't reverse it because you didn't use paper; if you took a bank check from them they could reverse the payment to your bank. Also you don't want to use the same bank as your own because they can use set off if the other side tries to renege on the transaction.

    In fact, if they are going to use wire transfer, use a new account because I suspect the information needed for an incoming wire is the same as could be used for an outgoing one, and they might be able to siphon money out of your account. Or check with your bank to find out how to have a wire transfer that doesn't allow them to extract money from you, but I think wire transfers are ridiculous because of the fact that your bank charges you for the incoming transfer as well.

    Automatic red flag: if they offer you more and want you to arrange something to send them money back. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time it's a scam for them to rip someone else off and leave you on the hook to make the person they stole from whole, since they can't be found, but you can.

    I just went and looked it up for an example transaction, a Western Union transfer of $1,000 from Netherlands to the U.S. is about 711 Euros and costs around 41 Euros for the transaction, probably less than it would cost them for both ends of a wire transfer. If you're charging less than $1000 for the domain, the transfer fee to them will probably be less.

    If you do these things and the transaction goes through, it hasn't cost you anything but a little time and you've protected yourself.

    Otherwise it's no different from selling anything you own to someone else. A domain name has a registered owner, you transfer the registration to someone else, they own it. Most personal property doesn't have registered owners, if you sell something they just t

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    1. Re:I've done it; exact opposite, though by merreborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      then, once the transfer clears, take all the money out except a token amount ($1) in cash, and then deposit the cash in your other account. Or close the account as you no longer need it.

      This way, they can't undo the transaction and you've got the cash. Even if they try to reverse the transaction, the bank can't reverse it because you didn't use paper; if you took a bank check from them they could reverse the payment to your bank. Also you don't want to use the same bank as your own because they can use set off if the other side tries to renege on the transaction.

      Frankly, from what I've read, what you're suggesting offers no protection whatsoever.

      You're recommend having the check, transfer, etc. deposited in a new account at Bank A, withdrawing the funds in cash, and transferring them to Bank B -- your regular bank. My understanding is that, should the check bounce, Bank A would simply reverse the credit, leaving you with an overdraft -- regardless of whether the account had been "closed" (I've had this happen -- I closed an account, and had a debit against the account come through after the fact). They'd then send you a notice that you owe them money, and, should you fail to respond, send a collection agency after you. The bank certainly sent me an overdraft notice in my case. After talking to someone on the phone, I was able to get the overdraft fee reversed, since it had been their error that lead to the debit on that account. I had to transfer funds to cover the debit itself, however. ...I mean, really, if your scheme worked, what would prevent scammers from using the exact same plan to intentionally deposit bad checks, and withdraw cash?

    2. Re:I've done it; exact opposite, though by magicchex · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right, I'm not sure what the GP was smoking/thinking.

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
    3. Re:I've done it; exact opposite, though by erple2 · · Score: 1

      Your post needs to be modded "+1 dangerous and not secure at all".

      Closing an account does NOT guarantee that the charges don't get reversed back to you. If you fail to pay those reversed charges, it goes on your permanent credit report. In certain situations, they can dock your pay to repay the amount you owe them.

      Is Western Union secure? Why does craigslist say to avoid any Western Union payers as a scammer?

    4. Re:I've done it; exact opposite, though by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Is Western Union secure? Why does craigslist say to avoid any Western Union payers as a scammer?

      http://baheyeldin.com/technology/technology-in-society/craigslist-scam-cheque-and-western-union-for-more-than-amount.html

      Basically, the scam works like this:

      1. You offer an item for sale for $350
      2. The scammer sends you a (fake) check for $2000
      3. The scammer instructs you to return the excess ($1650) via western union
      4. You deposit the check, wire $1650, and ship your item
      5. The check bounces (there are even cases in which the check can appear to clear, and then bounce later, especially for international checks). The western union tranfer, however, is unreversable.
      6. You're out $1650 + the item you "sold"
  73. I get those all the time by Animats · · Score: 1

    This looks like a spam. If they don't even mention the domain name, they're probably not very serious about it.

    I get those all the time, especially from my "downside.com" domain.

    1. Re:I get those all the time by corychristison · · Score: 1

      just wanted to point this out.... they did mention the domain name in the e-mail. It was blanked out with '---'

  74. Will probably en up like nissan.com If you refuse. by elguevote · · Score: 1

    Well, just check out the nissan.com story...

  75. I did this a few years back... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    However, it took over six months to get the actual domain transferred because of the idiocy of my registrar (Network Solutions, I'm looking at you). Figure in some money for your time involvement.

    --
    That is all.
  76. Be careful. by jrutherfca · · Score: 1

    If the domain is yourlastname.com then you have a legitimate claim on the domain and should not be concerned about trademark infringement or being accused of domain squatting. Check over at estibot.com and see what the potential value is. lastname.com,s are a fairly rare commodity and can command offers in the xx,xxx dollar range. If you do decide to sell, consider using a marketplace like sedo.com to make sure that you are protected in the transaction.

  77. Don't sell it by FooGoo · · Score: 1

    ...rent it to them.

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  78. be nice people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you're all comparing this to billions.com companies and massive (mainly US) legal cases involving domains.

    best practice/due diligence is probably to follow what others have advised but a bit of perspective is probably needed.

    look at zerba.nl...

    I wouldn't say its the most impressive of ecommerce sites, built on a budget at most.

    Look at the pics in the site too... it seems more of a high street boutique than a multi-national with lawyers coming out of its ears.

    If it was me, I'd offer it at pittance. Or free if they paid me for site build ;-)

  79. If you don't mind selling it... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Sell it if you don't mind but get some more proof they are legit. I'm not sure why a scammer would want it. I don't see the URL in your post so I don't know if it has some sort of value even if you don't have a popular website.

    At least entertaining their offer is better than being sued for the URL.

  80. Smart.com by david.emery · · Score: 1

    Used to belong to a friend of mine whose last name is Smart. He didn't know who he sold it to until after the deal was done, and he might have gotten 10x what he sold it for if he had held out.

    We've had several apparently legitimate offers for my wife's domain, which is her first name. One was a soccer team in Paraguay, and the other was a travel agency in Italy. In both cases a bit of Googling showed the name (with my wife's unusual spelling) was in use by the companies who contacted us. (The Paraguayan offer included free tickets to their games, which was a bit inconvenient for us :-)

    If we had the .org version, I would have been more interested in selling the .com version, but unfortunately all the other TLDs were taken by presumably squatters.

    Finally, my cousin has a business that uses his last name plus some other stuff. Apparently he let that particular domain expire, so I snarfed it up to give it (back) to him at Christmas.

    So not all 'squatters' are evil, and some people looking to take a family name are legitimate. Unfortunately, it's hard to figure out how to do an international fair transfer for property like this that protects both side of the deal from the other.

    dave

  81. Dutch... by raketman11 · · Score: 1

    The only reason he asked this question to /., must be because he is dutch (i bet). We never miss an opportunity to make a buck! (Yes, I am dutch)

    --
    trans corpus mortuum
    1. Re:Dutch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend has so many stories about Dutch people getting out calculators to pay for their exact share of meals when she worked out there.

      Her comment on your post? "HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

  82. Sell your domain on eBay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago I had the same type of request. I promptly put the domain name for sale for $1,200 on eBay, then replied to the letter with a link to my auction. They bought it the next day.

    Good luck!

  83. Sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple answer? If it doesn't mean that much to you then sell it to them for a reasonable price and don't be a dick about it. Remember this isn't the lottery.

    I had a similar situation with a domain. The suitor ended up paying me a small sum (very small) and even paying for my new domain. His business was happy and I was happy.

    Also, forget the stupid suggestion to keep your email address for two reasons. One, what is to keep the buyer from copying all your email before forwarding it? Two, it's a legal liability to the buyer to agree and you're a putz to even ask.

  84. Re:zerba.com ---- If it's balck and wihte, MUST by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    It be a zerba???

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  85. He's not offering - he was approached by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    The order of events is important here. The guy was minding his own business and getting on with his life. He was approached by the dutch company. So he cannot be accused (well, he could be accused, but they'd be wrong) of trying to profit from it.

    In his position, I'd try to get them to make the offer - respond with a "what did you have in mind?" email - trying to make sure that they aren't a porno outfit or other "bad" use of his family name.

    If the offer is reasonable and fits with his plans, then go for it - simple.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:He's not offering - he was approached by Deton8 · · Score: 1

      The order of events is important here. The guy was minding his own business and getting on with his life. He was approached by the dutch company. So he cannot be accused

      Actually, there are a lot of cases where the opposing lawyer "tricked" the seller by asking for a price. This was then used in the WIPO hearings as part of the bad faith proof, as I said in the prior post, if there are other factors such as a lack of a genuine interest in the trademark, a pattern of similar squatting/selling, lack of genuine use of the domain, and so forth. The OP didn't say how he came to choose the domain name, for example, if it's his surname or the name of a mythical character or whatever. If he chose it because his bitch bought him a Zerba condom dispenser for his birthday, then quoting a price to Zerba will prove he's a squatter. But make no mistake -- an IP lawyer will always ask you for a price as the first step in trying to take the domain away. A large corporation will generally have lawyers handling this kind of thing, so beware.

  86. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One the flip side, if megacorp A wants the domain, they might want it to look personal and unprofessional in order to lowball you. Consider what dollar amount you'd have in mind if a multimillionaire CEO was asking to buy this versus some random shop owner.

    It's like the old adage of not going to buy a new car dressed in expensive clothing.

  87. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seem that poorly written for a CEO/business owner with a less than perfect sense of English.

    Do the due diligence; respectful response, solicit an offer from them, make no promises or representations. If you've been using this domain for a while now in good faith you're probably under no obligation to deliver the domain. Remember the mtv.com/Adam Curry fiasco? In the end, they made it worth his while rather than keep coming back with bigger lawyers, and they sent some pretty big lawywers in the beginning.

    My former employer sold a few interesting domains for fair money, and had one bully try to slam him over another. Our lawyer prevailed, thankfully before he got disbarred, but that's another an unrelated story...

    Sell it for real money if you can. After all, let them finance your new mail server, hosting costs for the next 5 years or so, and a nice stipend to play with. For a serious business, it's either worth it or not. And no, I cannot tell you how much is enough, but it's more than a kind person would ask for, and less than most /.'rs would hope.

    ps- if you're not married yet, the ring shoudl be covered too, if not the whole party...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  88. *NEVER* throw out a number by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the domain were just his name, none of this would matter. But the fact that the company's name matches the domain makes it a potential trademark dispute, so you must be mindful of ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It explicitly lists several types of "bad faith" registrations, and the first one is acquiring a domain primarily for the purposes of selling it. If you throw out a number, that can be interpreted as evidence of intent to sell, and thus bad faith and grounds for losing your domain.

    Instead, get them to make an offer first. Something like, "I hadn't really thought about selling it, but my bills have been getting kind of high recently. How much were you thinking?" Although the most bulletproof is, "Sorry, not interested" and hope they make an offer.

    Go to Moniker's domain auction site for some ballpark figures of how much domains similar to yours are selling for.

    1. Re:*NEVER* throw out a number by pbhj · · Score: 1

      How about: "I don't want to sell it but I could transfer it you free for a $200,000 admin fee"?

      Or perhaps lease it to them?

  89. Re:Alternate hypothesis WHAT IF IT is reverse by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    selling attempt going on here? What if the OP is some troll gaming for attention? Or, an out-of-work guy looking for a year or two of income?

    I mean, what if the OP *thinks* s/he has a salable name, is trying to perk up the attention of a IP/trademark lawyer or admin of the same-named or similarly-named company s/he HOPES will jump to buy the domain?

    Not EVERY thing is what it SEEMS...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  90. I sold mine..... by rbunker · · Score: 1

    I used bunker.com for email from 1994 until last year. Then I got such an unsolicited email offer. I decided to reply and see what the offer was. Well, after successful use of escrow.com I am 10,000 euros richer! I say found money is great money, but do recommend the escrow path.

  91. Obligatory by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  92. Review Chaco.com decision by drgreening · · Score: 3, Informative

    You should solidify your ownership of the domain immediately, and consider specifics about offers, etc. later.

    I had an interesting challenge to my ownership of the Chaco.com domain. We were using it legitimately to host material on Chaco Canyon, as well as hosting our MUD client (formerly owned by our company Chaco Communications). And yet, we were challenged by Chaco Sandals. The challenge was close; we almost lost the domain, just because we were a little sloppy.

    The details are here:

    http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/791739.htm

    Based on my experience, I would suggest that you get all the domain ownership issues in a solid form: Use your own name, make sure the addresses are correct and usable, don't use a "privacy filter" like GoDaddy sells to hide your identity.

    Good luck.

  93. Forward for 6 months, auto-responder for a year by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    It's not reasonable to expect to be able to keep the email address.

    However they could set up a forwarder for a period of time which will allow you to notice and update any mailing lists etc you may have forgotten and then an automatic responder for an additional period to catch people who still haven't managed to update your email address and tell them your new one.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  94. Re:Lucky -- Dutch-good Double-Dutch-Good? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Not to malign Annie Lennox/Eurythmics, but tell them, "Hey, Mizza mizza mizza... Gizza gizza gizza me a milla milla dollaz plizza... Let's go Dutch, and make it Double-Dutch-Good, our you can take the Double-Dutch Bus." And, give them the lyrics URL to the Frankie Smith song:

    "Double-Dutch Bus"

    http://www.lyricsdownload.com/frankie-smith-double-dutch-bus-lyrics.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Dutch_Bus

    Then, throw in some appropriate lyrics from Annie, like "Sweet Dreams"...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  95. Uh, no by MattW · · Score: 1

    Did you even read the link? He never lost the domain. For a while, he was enjoined from certain activities, although from looking at his site, even that was turned over on appeal.

    I am glad for the reminder, though. Screw Nissan.

    1. Re:Uh, no by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Screw Nissan.

      Which Nissan? I'm confused. ; )

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  96. rent. by jjshoe · · Score: 1

    Don't sell them your domain. Sell them re-direct services on a monthly basis. For X a month you will gladly rent them your DNS.

    --
    -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
  97. I Say Take The Money by supertireguy · · Score: 1

    Figure out a fair price and take the money. Or negotiate an up front sum and a 3% annual fee for their use.

  98. what a load of crap, in europe SRPS 0,5 EUR by omb · · Score: 1

    what a load of crap, in europe SRPS 0,5 EUR, or paypal, both cost almost nothing to collect; us banks and wu are rip-offs

  99. You are my hero!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It has been six months, probably longer, that I have seen "LOSE" spelled correctly on the web, in a forum or in a news feed.

    Thank you, thank you!!

  100. How about this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm using it for business, it does not violate your trademark, therefore go away" ?

    I hate changing email addresses. It's the fastest way to dump 30+ contacts you forgot about but will probably need to reach someday.

  101. barter? by pixelguru · · Score: 1

    Does this company sell/make/do anything that might be of value to you? Barter makes the world go round.

  102. If you wait a few years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you hesitate, our government might start allowing people to confiscate your .com for their own use, just as they are illegally doing with private property to get tax returns from developers.

  103. I'd be wary by perlchild · · Score: 1

    I've seen in one case where a .cn name was used, it was all nice and all, saying they had to get our permission. But it really was a ploy to try to get us to register the .cn at inflated prices... On the other hand, there was no existing site in the .cn at the time, so I'll admit it's not an identical situation to the article.

  104. Escrow service. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    It's quite likely a legitimate offer.

    I sold my domain name last year for $10,000.00

    I was surprised at the offer, thought it was a hoax, did an escrow service, and it went without a hitch.

    The name is still just parked.

    I don't care if I could have gotten more for it.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  105. Why the hell not?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company I work for just got $15k for a domain in a very similar scenario. The domain was for an obscure division that was probably going to go away eventually anyway. But, they managed to convince the company (and this was partially true) that they had to redevelop all their marketing materials, website, business cards etc. Then they just ran out and bought our local country domain and made some changes on the mail server. Presto! Back in business, a few contacts to notify, but not that many.

    Think about it: the guy who sent the request seems to have an exact matching domain on a different country code, and a legitimate business seems to be in operation on said domain. Seems like an awful lot of work for a scammer to go to.

    And they haven't accused our intrepid writer of squatting either. I can't believe all the "marshall the lawyers!" crap coming out here.

    Wait, I take that last part back.

  106. Go for lease, name your price by dacarr · · Score: 1

    One thing I've seen is that this guy (check his FAQ for this domain) won't sell his, but will lease it for a nominal very large fee. I think this is what keeps him from running afoul of any anti-squatting regulation, and still allows him to offer his services for a fee.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  107. Ask the pros by audubon · · Score: 1

    Why not submit your questions to the pros?

  108. Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing wrong with selling a domain name. If you are selling it strictly for profit (such as domain squatting) you are part of the reason the net is full of scammers; if you purchased it without the intent of making money and it has suddenly become valuable it's just good fortune. Consider what is the domain worth to you, what will it mean for them; negotiate a price that satisfies both of your agenda. If you cannot agree upon a price then just hold on to the name.

  109. This is an easy one... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First - ignore it. If they're really interested and legitimate, they'll ask again, more than likely with a number attached.

    If they contact you a second time (and they will if there's a CEO prodding an underling to get the name), tell them that you are not interested, as you currently are using the domain for (insert several uses here) and after (length of time you've owed it) of regular use, the effort to switch to another name would be a significant burden.

    Rinse and repeat until either the number they throw at you is large enough to cover your legal bills for escrow, transfer agreements and execution (I would budget $5-10k) and clear enough to really make a difference in your finances. That might be $10k or $100k or more depending on your situation. If they don't come back, then you get to keep your domain.

    If you get close to an agreement, I would seriously consider leasing the domain name as suggested above instead of selling, if you can't give up your email address. Put a 10 year lease on it with an option to purchase at the end. You can then get - and transfer - all your stuff over to a .us (or other) domain during that time, while requiring through the lease deal that they use forwarding to keep your emails coming at least during the lease period. Having had my domain for a decade, and having missed my .com by 3 months, I would opt for the lease or nothing short of $100k.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  110. Another legal thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another thing that should likely be considered here is how long this company has been in business. If it is a new company started long after your domain registration, you're probably a little safer from a legal front. This removes the possibility that you bought the domain (which I assume is rather obscure) with the intent of selling it to them at a later date. Since they didn't exist, this couldn't have been the case.

  111. redirect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of selling them the domain make them rent the domain from you. Ask them for a yearly charge and you will redirect the .com domain to their site. That way you keep control of your e-mail and they will get any visitors that type in .com.

  112. Been there... got the legal papers to prove it. by stonewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I also own the .com version of my name. In my case my last name is the name of a company that does about $100 million a year and has had a trademark on my name and a few versions of it for over a 100 years.

    I can tell you for a fact that companies that are serious about getting your domain name do not send you a polite email asking to buy it. They have their agent or lawyer send a registered letter and follow up with a phone call.

    Most likely the guy who contacted you won't pay you enough to make it worth the hassle of changing your email address. But, speaking as someone who has turned down offers ranging from a couple of shirts (no, I am not making that up, they were very nice wool shirts...) to $20,000 for my domain name and as someone who has been threatened with being sued over my ownership and use of the domain name 6 times over the last 12 years here are a few things to think about.

    1) It is your name. (The web cred for being first-name @ last-name . com is incredible.)

    2) It will only become more valuable with time.

    3) Don't fall into the nice guy trap. You are not doing this guy a favor, he doesn't give a shit about you. This is no different than if someone walked up and offered to buy your truck. (That has happened to me too.) You have something he wants, but you want it too. You do not have to share.

    4) Research the company. What does D&B say about them? How much can they afford to spend? How much is the domain really worth to them?

    5) Never never never tell them what you will sell it for. No matter what price you mention they will make a lower counter offer and will never (well... almost never) pay what you ask. More importantly, they will pay *no more* than what they *think* it is worth to them. If you quote a price that price will be the maximum they will pay. If they quote the first price that price will be the minimum they will pay.

    6) If the sale is contingent on your getting a .us domain then make sure you have that domain before you finish the deal. My dear friends went out and grabbed all the names I might want as an alternate domain just so they could use them as bargaining chips.

    7) If they make an offer get a lawyer. Do not reply to an offer until you have a lawyer. BTW, a *good* intellectual property lawyer is not cheap The first one I tried to talk to wanted a $30,000 retainer. So, I had to go with a not very good lawyer... BTW, you should note that the cost of a *good* lawyer started out $10,000 higher than anyone ever offered for the name.

    My best advice is to send back a polite email asking what he is offering. When the reply turns out to be less than $100 you can laugh, tell the guy to blow you, and at least know you had the fun of getting a personal question posted on /.

    Oh yeah... in the end I still own the name and I am in the hole a few thousand for legal bills. I am pretty happy about that. They could have sued (even though they would have lost) and bankrupted me with the legal fees of winning the suit.

    Stonewolf

  113. -1 Wrong. by raehl · · Score: 1

    ... a registered trademark trumps natural-born name use. For example, William H. Macy could not have a department store chain named "Macy's" or "William H. Macy's". Both would violate Macy's trademark.

    1. Re:-1 Wrong. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Do you happen to have a statute or case to cite for that?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  114. This happened to my customer once by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    His company name and domain was his last name. When the company was bought and rebranded by a big corporation to expand their outlets, he had repeated requests to sell the domain to another family business with the same last name. I advised him to sell. He thought about it for several years, and finally forgot to renew - so the other company got it cheap. I suppose that was fitting in a way.

  115. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own my name as a domain name. It does not cost much. I like the convenience. It is kinda fun when I have to give out my e-mail address. Easy to remember.

    Definitely not worth selling.

  116. could be dangerous...or funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know what his company is doing?
    could be some kinky xxx stuff.
    All your friends, colleagues family know your domain...and then the emails coming in hehehe
    Hope you get a bucketfull of money, worth all that explaining you have to do

  117. I've sold domains from unsolicited offers as well. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've sold three domains I was legitimately using and made a pretty nice wad of cash.

    I registered a domain name about 6 years ago with the intent of starting a company that offered a service pertinent to the domain. It was a mashup of two words that I created myself. About 3 months after registering it I got an email from someone in Israel asking me if I would consider selling it. My response was along the lines of, "No, I hadn't considered selling it but so that I can compare with what I had planned to do with it, could you let me know your offer?" He came back and said $1,000. That is not a lot of money, but I had a pipeline of about 20 other web projects in front of the one I was considering for this domain so I took it.

    We did an escrow.com jobby and everything worked flawlessly.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  118. I had an offer for a domain a few years ago by Skapare · · Score: 1

    I had an offer for a domain a few years ago. I immediately considered the notion that if I responded too positively, initially, they could take one or both of two routes: 1. stick with their low initial offer, or 2. initiate a legal action to get the name under the concept that I was just domain squatting. So my response was simply to indicate that I had a substantial investment in the domain, including a few thousand email addresses (a couple hundred of which I or others used, and the rest being spamtraps used to detect where spammers were operating so I could refuse email from those places). They set up a phone conference and tripled the offer. I eventually got it doubled from that, and had this all done through a bank escrow account.

    Be very careful with this, especially with a company that has the same name. I might suggest getting them to send you a letter acknowledging your equal right to, and prior possession of, the domain name. But by all means be sure you arrange an escrow account at your bank and be sure your bank understands (in writing) that they are to acknowledge to you that the money is present in a way that cannot be reversed except under the terms of the escrow, which should be limited to you failing to transfer the domain.

    As for negotiating a price, keep in mind that no one really gives their best offer up front.

    You might be tempted to ask them to commit to forwarding your email to you for one or a few email addresses. Just don't bother with this. Ask for a price that covers your costs and hassles of changing now. Once the transaction is done, they could violate the terms and just shut it off, knowing it would be too hard for you to deal with it via international law (the costs likely to be greater than you get for the domain). Even if you win, they would just say the admin screwed up and they will fix it. This is just not worth it. So think of this deal as including the sale of all your email addresses (and ask for an inflated price for that).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  119. icann-has-cheezburger.com? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I guess that's cats, not dogs, but whatever...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  120. Re:Turn the Screws on Their Thumbs - Nissan by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    http://www.nissan.com/

    The other side of this story.

  121. Lease it! by plasticpixel · · Score: 1

    Offer to lease use of the domain to them for a number of years.

  122. Dear poster by Vexorian · · Score: 1

    Is slashdot your private eight ball?

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    1. Re:Dear poster by dmneoblade · · Score: 1

      Ask again later

      --
      Warning, knife is sharp. Please keep out of children.
  123. I get the opposite by barzok · · Score: 1

    Subject: Regarding your domain name MYDOMAIN.us
    From: jerkwad@googlemail.com

    Hi,
     
    I own the .COM version of your domain name MYDOMAIN.us and I want to sell it.
     
    I was wondering if you would be interested in buying this domain for $195 seeing as though you own the same domain but in another extension ?
     
    Let me know
    Thanks
    jerkwad.

    So, I go look up MYDOMAIN.com - totally unregistered. Can't sell what you don't own, try again jackass (yes, that's basically what I sent him).

  124. A word to the wise by dbialac · · Score: 1

    I got an offer on a domain purchase much like this years ago (terabytesoftware.com). Like this situation they owned one with an almost identical name (terabyte-software.com). A few things were funny about it. First, nothing was on their site. The other funny thing was when we agreed on terms, they couldn't seem to come up with a way to transfer the funds that didn't involve me providing my checking account number and routing number. I'm not saying thats the case here, but it sound really familiar.

  125. Coincedence. by xate · · Score: 1

    One time I told a coworker that people should have their pets cryogenically frozen instead of sent to a pet boarding facility, or have a boarding facility that just freezes the pets, to keep them in perfect condition ofcourse.

    The next day I checked my email, which I do about twice a month, and in my Junk Mail was an email suggesting exactly that. Normal-like spammer gobblygook, except it talked about cryogenically freezing pets when you go on vacation.

    A) The government is reading my mind.
    B) I'm on the Truman Show.
    or C) Spam is highly coincidental sometimes.

  126. sell it for 10k by carterson2 · · Score: 1

    I sold one for 10k, just get the money first.

  127. Before you get complicated.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Negotiating 101: ask *them* to make them to make the first offer.

    Nothing would make you feel sillier than offering it to them for $2000 and having them snap it up without batting an eye....

  128. Personally... by retro128 · · Score: 0

    Personally, I would be more inclined to keep the domain and ignore the email. The bottom line is you got an unsolicited message from from some schmoe who provided you with very few details - It looks like a bulk email to me and smells strongly of a scam.

    Here take a look at this. It could be this scam adapted to domain names. If you REALLY want to take a chance on this guy, get the money wired or make damn sure anything he sends you clears before you lift a finger. This is particularly true if the numbers he's talking are too-good-to-be-true amounts.

    --
    -R
    1. Re:Personally... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true.
      Unsolicited? Yes,
      Spammer? Not really.
      If the owner had hidden his contact details while registering the domain, the buyer would attempt to make contact through a mediator like Godaddy.com Godaddy offers to make contact on buyer's behalf with the owner asking whether he would sell. For this godaddy makes money.
      So, the buyer has already spent money to contact an you. No self-respecting spammer would do so.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Personally... by retro128 · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument is based on IF the owner had his contact details hidden, which we don't know because of the smattering of info we've received in the OP. It's no secret that there are all sorts of bots trolling through WHOIS databases for email addresses, either, and we know from the Nigerian 419 scams that there are armies of con artists trying to shake people down via unsolicited transactions. Why am I the only guy in this entire thread who thinks the solicitor may not be acting in good faith? Am I missing something here?

      --
      -R
  129. This actually happened to a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They offered $5000. He responded that he wanted $300,000 for his domain name. They said no thanks . . . 4 months go by.
    The offer $15,000. He responded that he wanted $300,000 . . . 6 months go by.
    The new CFO calls up and offers to rent it for 2 years for $20,000, and an option to buy for $200,000 at the end of the 2 years.

    Moral is: If the company is growing waiting is better for you. Go drive some traffic to your site and wait.

  130. Escrow.com by hedronist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    +1 on escrow.com

    I sold a domain 2 years ago using escrow.com and everything went smooth as silk. To this day I do not know who the buyer was, but his agent handled a few details, and the money was wire transfered - ba da bing.

    This was a domain I registered back in 1992 and I got an ridiculous amount for it. But if I knew then what I know now ... Sigh. I could have had sex.com, auto.com, business.com, etc.com. Sigh. Back to working on the perpetual motion machine.

  131. You need a layer of protection. by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    The person asking does not appear to be a large business. A large business would have had an attorney contact you who has done business with US customers, have a better grasp of English and have an agent in the US who can sign papers and accept funds.

    If it's a lot of money it's best if find a savvy business attorney who knows how to handle everything for you. Yes it's expensive but it is worth it in the long run. You can make the buyer pay your attorney's fees.

    I don't know what the going rate is for a domain nor do I know the amount of money involved.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  132. Advice I got when I was approached by large co. by CelebrityDNA · · Score: 1

    I went through this myself. Ended up selling the domain for lots of money. First thing to beware of is this: If it's a valuable domain a big company can "sue you to death" cheaper than they can buy it. So be reasonable. There are exceptions. With my domain I knew that they were going public and they needed the .com NOW. So I didn't worry about that because I knew they couldn't allow it to be tied up in court. Google them, see what they're up to. You might have some leverage. Second thing to beware of: Offering to sell it to them can be construed as you trying to make a profit off of someone else's work/trademark/etc. This might not be true, but see #1 above. Better to say "everything is for sale, make an offer." You can always make the sale conditional on them maintaining a forwarding of your email address. It's trivial. I'd still migrate away from it, but that relieves you of any hurry. One more thing. If they owned the trademark BEFORE you owned the domain name, they have a good case to just take it from you. If they are trying to buy it they might not know that. Good luck.

  133. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by MusPasser · · Score: 1

    The sender of the email is just being Dutch. Things that sound perfectly normal to us Dutch are actually impolite to most of the rest of the world. As to verifiable identity, the email did carry an actual name + email address. How much more identity do you want from a first email?

  134. Ask for email forwarding. by darkonc · · Score: 1
    It might be worthwhile to offer to let them buy it if they guarantee to forward your email to you in perpetuity (and within reason, in terms of changes).

    That way, you:

    • show that you are legitimately using the domain, and care about it.
    • don't have to change all of your existing email
    • get to make money off of the domain
    • minimally inconvenience them.

    I think that this might be a bit of a win-win situation.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  135. This is what's wrong with corporations by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At a certain point, when you realize the guy isn't squatting, you cut him a check for $250K and you're done with it.

    Nissan has spent more than that on lawyer's fees and are further from their goal. If I was on the board of directors, I'd ask to have the guy pushing this fired. Not because of the money, but because of poor judgment. If you can't use common sense in obvious things, you probably can't suddenly turn it on for complex issues.

    Really, fire the guy at Nissan Motors who keeps pushing this lawsuit, and then pay the guy a few bucks for the domain.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by alienw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good lord, what is it with people who just have no fucking clue about trademark laws. First, unless Uzi Nissan had a REGISTERED TRADEMARK for his name, and challenged Nissan Motors' trademark registration when they filed it, he has no right to use that trademark except in whatever local market he is doing business in. If he is not actively doing business, then he doesn't even have a trademark. It doesn't matter who was using it first, either. What matters is that Nissan Motors' trademark is famous, and at this point uncontestable.

      As for the "it's his name" argument: that doesn't mean anything. Mercedes Benz is a name too. That doesn't mean I can have mercedesbenz.com.

      Second, if Nissan Motors didn't try to get their domain back, they would have a hard time showing that they were diligent in protecting their mark. Actively defending your mark from misuse is a requirement imposed by the trademark laws. If they don't do this in ALL cases, they would have a hard time suing anyone over trademark misuse.

    2. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by Zironic · · Score: 1

      Actually that's not how trademark works, the trademark just makes sure noone else can sell cars under the nissan name, anyone is allowed to have a website with the nissan name aslong as their product can't be confused with nissans.

    3. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by WNight · · Score: 1

      Yes, why don't you just stop posting about it, considering you know so little.

      Everything you say would only be true if he was passing his name-based domain off as the trademarked domain. In that case, his name would be no defense. But if he merely has a domain whose name could be confusing (Coke is other things besides coca-cola) it isn't problematic unless he tries to use that trademarked name for the one thing he can't - trying to represent himself with the company's image.


      coke.com - fansite for old smelting technology - just fine
      coke.com - telling people to stop drinking pop - just fine
      coke.com - pretending to be the coca-cola company - forbidden

      So as long as your website doesn't pretend to be (related to) the company whose trademark your domain name happens to be, you're in the clear by a basic reading of trademark law. No intentional confusion, no overlapping areas of business.

      Further, while there is a requirement for a company to take action against trademark violations that they see, there's no legal requirement for them to be assholes about it.

      They could solve the case by writing "Though your domain is also our trademark, we recognize your efforts to distinguish yourself from our company which means you are not violating our trademark. Thanks." That would fully protect them (establish a history of actively investigating misuse) and yet not cause an unreasonable burned on the site owner. It would also explain to the owner what not to do to avoid future legal problems.

      Any lawyer *could* help them figure out the non-confrontational way to handle this and save your rights. So why haven't they? Because they want the domain name but not to pay for it. The trademark/squatting lawsuit is just a way to fool people like you (with some knowledge) into thinking they deserve it.

    4. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      you don't have to register a trademark to have some form of ownership - merely using it for long enough can protect you from someone deciding to own it. or at least that's the case in many jurisdictions. basically, a kind of prior art. that said, you'd definitely better off registering your trademark to keep things simple.

    5. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Judging by your comments, you shouldn't be blindly accusing others of misunderstanding trademark law. You might want to look into that a little so you can understand why an auto maker has no business suing someone for having the same mark registered for selling computers.

      As for your little spiel about him needing to have it registered, HE DOES as of 1995 apparently. Honestly, you need to at least do a little research if you're going to go around accusing people of not understanding matters.

      Second, if Nissan Motors didn't try to get their domain back, they would have a hard time showing that they were diligent in protecting their mark. Actively defending your mark from misuse is a requirement imposed by the trademark laws. If they don't do this in ALL cases, they would have a hard time suing anyone over trademark misuse.

      I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. It's 100% apparent from even cursory examination that Uzi Nissan is using the name well within his rights. He's selling computers under it, and hasn't sold cars under it SINCE BEFORE NISSAN MOTORS EXISTED (it was called Datsun at the time). An even cursory examination of public records on behalf of Nissan Motors would have been all the "diligence" they needed to see this guy is doing nothing outside of his own legal rights, as the courts eventually (after a long process of apparent incompetence) managed to find. No, this sort of corporate bullying isn't "diligence," it's vexatious and frivolous, not to mention counterproductive for EVERYBODY involved. It's just a shame our legal system is becoming so perverted that this sort of nonsense isn't squashed immediately, rather than worming its way through several years and millions of dollars in pointless legal expenses. If Nissan Motors had simply offered him a decent sum to buy the domain that is clearly rightfully his to begin with, they would have saved themselves a lot of money and bad publicity.

    6. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by alienw · · Score: 1

      Um, Nissan Motor federally registered the "NISSAN" mark in 1959. As the court concluded, the NISSAN mark could be considered famous in 1991. Uzi Nissan registered the domain name in 1994. The only thing that saved him is Nissan Motor's delay in bringing suit, and poor lawyering on Nissan's part.

    7. Re:This is what's wrong with corporations by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is a very late response, but it doesn't matter when they register the trademark if they don't actively use it. Trademarks are one of those things that have to be actively maintained by doing business under that mark. So, unless they were actually doing business under the NISSAN name from 1959 onward, their rights to that mark would have been lost. I honestly don't know the history, but from the admittedly one-sided things I read, they were in fact doing business under the name DATSUN. In other words, you can't just register a mark, not use it for 50 years, and then sue somebody because they do.

  136. I've given one domain away by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    Sure someday it might be used for something significant, but I just registered it as an amusing pun when .us became available (and no, it was not del.icio.us, but it was an English word ending in us).

    I'd been paying the registration fees on it for a few years but had never used it as more than a testing page. Someone else was interested and asked politely, I sat on it for a while but when the registration was coming due I decided it wasn't worth the $8 bucks to me to hang on to it so I transferred it over to him.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  137. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt you do much international business. I do, and my company is *constantly* contacted by new sales/supply leads that consist of very little information and poorly composed English. More often than not, it's the language barrier that causes the messages to be short and sweet. If the sender struggles with English, it makes sense for them to see if the recipient is even interested in their offer before trying to write a more complicated message.

    Granted, it's always nice to receive a well-formatted & grammatically correct inquiry, but to disregard it entirely for not meeting those requirements is a bit myopic - especially since the sender already legitimately owns the same domain name on .NL TLD. It's not unreasonable to consider that English probably isn't their primary language and they might have even had to use an online translator just for that short message.

  138. Thats not an offer by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    They are soliciting you to make an offer - tell them no, tell them to offer a specific amount.

    In fact, given your situation, I'd immediately list your domain at a site that handles domain transactions. I can recommend sedo.com from past experience.

  139. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser. If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either. If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them? This smells bad.

    The probability of an ungrammatical message originating from an illegitimate source is higher than the probability of an ungrammatical message originating from a legitimate source, but it *is* possible, and you would be surprised to see how ungrammatical some emails originating by some very rich business leaders of multinational corporations can be or how "cluttered" and "disorganised" their offices are. Of course, "cluttered" and "disorganised" are personal opinions, as these people are usually capable of finding anything they need in their "cluttered" offices.

    Bear in mind that many times businesspersons suffer from headaches and sleep debt as they are too busy and have a life full of problems and activity.

  140. I will send you a cheque for $5000! by Aaron+Aardwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't sell your name to him!!

    I have always wanted this domain name, and am willing to pay MANY DOLLARS for it!

    Please just send me your name and address, and I will send you a cheque for US$5000!

    I want your domain-name desperately!

    Just email your postal address to
    mailto:PrinceBonobo@hootmail.com
    or write me:
    His highness, Prince Bonobo,
    Box 419, Central P.O.,
    Tinubu Square,
    Lagos, Nigeria

    I guarantee you many great rewards!

    per my North American solicitor-

    --
    - Aaron A. -
    Bringing Pinoqachole to the natives since 1643.
  141. Spam by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is that one e-mail all the correspondence you have?

    Why are you assuming that this is real? I had an offer for my website a while ago, and I replied, but got no further response.

    It became clear to me that it was simply spam, probably sent to the "contact@" address of thousands of sites. By replying, I simply confirmed the e-mail address, and made it slightly more valuable for spam.

  142. Rent it to them... by fluffykitty1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tell them you'll redirect web traffic to their website for a monthly fee.

    Nothing beats recurring income.

  143. Been there. by Anand7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the offer is reasonable and you have no great attachment to it, by all means sell it. There is precedent (with WIPO) for keeping the domain name if you have not attempted to profit from the other company's customers' mistaking you from them. The problem arises if they decide to take you to court--it gets very expensive very quickly. Also, the domain is likely not worth as much as what some people here are recommending and a small company might not be able to afford a lot. I've gone through the process with WIPO (I won) and the US courts (I couldn't afford to win). It sucks and is soul-sapping. Bottom line...sell it with an agreement (have it draughted by a lawyer and have the agreement state that the court that has jurisdiction is in your locale) that they won't challenge your registration of the .us (or whatever) domain and that even if the negotiations fail that the company will not use that correspondance as evidence of bad faith or cybersquatting. I would also make sure that the lawyer can hold the domain until the cheque clears.

  144. Ignore the FUD by rs79 · · Score: 1

    To lose a domain you have to be using it in bad faith. You're not as far as is shown here.

    So don't worry about it.

    (Bad faith would be using it in a way detrimental to them, directly)

    Keep in mind tradmark law is for a specifict class of goods or service in a specific geographic area. The world keeps on going even though "Delta" is a trademark of an airline and a company that makes faucets.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  145. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sender would appear to be from the Netherlands - English is likely not his/her first language. And in the sender's native language, the note probably sounded just fine.

    As well, business people, especially entrepreneurs, those starting and running their own business, are incredibly busy. They don't have time to compose lengthy missives when a short note will do. I've seen them initiate large, succesful deals with emails just as curt as the above.

  146. Don't get too excited by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until you find out how much they are willing to offer. Just tell them "there is no set price, but you're open to offers."

    I've received inquiries like this all the time for some domains I own. The typical offer is about $100.

    Foreign entities that happen to match your name (unless your name is Coke or Nike) are unlikely to be multinational fortune 500 companies.

    It never hurts to ask for offers, but in all likelihood, you're not going to get rich, nor is it even going to be worth the technical trouble involved in a transition.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Don't get too excited by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right. I got an unsolicited inquiry like this once. I responded that I'd sell it for $500, they counter offered $50. I said no thanks, that isn't worth my time to reconfigure everything and that was the end of it.

  147. nl means its probably for porn by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    I would hesitate to sell it to them unless you want your friends and acquaintances to end up at a porn site when they were browsing for your home page. I have refused to sell my domain to people in the Netherlands multiple times. I ask them what they want to use it for, and tell them my concern, and I never hear from them again.

  148. What's /. coming to... by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

    ...when you can't even call someone a dumbshit without getting modded flamebait?

    Although seriously, I totally agree with your post.

    --
    Nick
    1. Re:What's /. coming to... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In my experience, you only get modded down when you show yourself to be more of a dumbshit than the person you are calling a dumbshit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  149. Without Prejudice by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    If you email or write to them about this matter, make sure you head your email or letter with "Without Prejudice". That indicates that anything you say in the email is just "chat" and should not be taken to be any form of offer, admission of liability, or agreement with anything they may have said previously, etc. It can't be used as evidence in a court hearing where they're claiming you've admitted or agreed to something that you never intended to.

    "Without prejudice" is the correct wording within the UK and Australian legal systems, you may need to word it differently for other jurisdictions - i don't know. It's also just possible there's no such concept in some legal systems.

  150. and Lady Macdonald runs a hotel... by Shirotae · · Score: 1

    Lady Claire Macdonald runs the family home, Kinloch Lodge, as a hotel.

    I suspect that a Scottish court might see Lord Macdonald, Godfrey Macdonald of Macdonald, High Chief of Clan Donald, or his wife, of having a stronger claim to the use of the name at least in Scotland than some interloper from the USA.

    There is also a Macdonalds Restaurant & Guest House in Pitlochry. If I was visiting the area I might go there just to be able to say that I had at last found a Macdonalds Restaurant where the food was edible.

  151. my take. by rew · · Score: 1

    Twelve years ago, I didn't think I needed the ".com" domain for my company. I just registered the ".nl". Stupid mistake.

    I'd really love to be able to take over the ".com" domain from the guys that have it now.

    On the other side, when I had a domain someone wanted, I wouldn't be too harsh on them. However, you're calling the shots: So I would demand that they leave your Email address in place. Or you can offer them that they specify what they need of the domain (web, certain EMail addreses) and then offer them to provide those.

    Roger.

    P.S. Guessing which domain is even easier than with the poster....

  152. Win,Win, Win situation by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

    Offer them to give it to them if they donate n amount of money to a charity (or one of your choice) and they must also forward your email for 1/2 year. The charity will profit from it. The company can write it off as a charity and get good promotion for it. And you can have that nice warm feeling inside.

  153. No need to be paranoid.... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

    Concerning all these comments about lawsuits, consider this: the company is Dutch based, not US, and the Netherlands does not have the lawsuit culture of the US at all.... So quite probably this is just what it appears to be: a polite inquiry whether they can buy the domain name, for business reasons. No darker motives. The text being short? That's how we Dutch communicate. We tend to be direct.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  154. Someone did this for me once by Dammital · · Score: 1

    When my employer got on the 'net, we discovered that another guy had registered xxxx.com as a vanity domain barely a month before us. This was pretty much before the day of the domain squatter, so I sent the guy a nice letter. Introduced our company, sent him glossies and stuff, told him what we do. I didn't offer to buy the name from him (remember, it was when the domain name system was a gentleman's game), but I did offer to reprint his business cards and stationery, cover any expenses he had.

    Guess he could have taken us to the cleaners, but he was a nice guy - he declined to take anything for xxxx.com and just signed it over, taking xxxx.org instead. For years afterward I sent him every new piece of schwag our marketing people produced that had our (and his) name on it. Oh, and I also maintained several email accounts for him and his family, and forwarded mail to his new system.

    Cutting a deal doesn't always mean someone has to be screwed over.

  155. MrXian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zerba.nl is the website for a fancy shoe store. His website looks horrible, but that happens if people who know nothing about webbuilding get to make decisions about websites.

    I checked the dutch trade registry, as far as I can tell, it's a single-store chain.

    The message he sents is typical of a large portion of the dutch. Simple and to the point, with a decent but not great use of the english language. He probably thinks he sent you a perfect english request, but to be honest, most of us dutchies can't write a lengthy english text without screwing up and sounding like a moron.
    Unless those dutchies are slashdotters, of course.

    Anyway, here's what I found.

    The shop is in the hague, on a reasonably expensive shopping street in the old part of town. (Which is the town center.) The correspondence adress is the same as the store, and the store employs two fulltimers.

    So, you are dealing with a small shoe store here. That explains the form of the message, and I think that the message is legit.
    Do with it as you please.

  156. Re: by Martin+NameDrive · · Score: 1

    As I in my profession trade and broker domain names, I hope that I can help you out with this question. There have been many good replies to the original question, such as the fact that the risk of running into legal problems by responding to the email is next to zero. As the domain has your last name and you have not plastered it with ads for similar products as the company wanting buy the domain from you, there is no risk for being judged as using the domain in bad faith. When it comes to which price level you should set you can get some input on domain sales overall from the sales lists at dnjournal.com. Of course, the highest sales are recorded there, but it gives you an insight on what the most valuable names are and what people are ready to pay for quality domain names. Once you have agreed on a price I would strongly advise you to use an escrow service to make sure that you get your money. If you would like more info feel free to post your questions here or to martin at namedrive dot com.

  157. Be careful by jamie · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's been some time since I've followed WIPO domain-name issues...

    ...but I think I still know the most important rules.

    The deck is stacked against you. But, you can still "win" (trade your domain for some money) if you know the rules.

    The most important two rules are:

    (1) Be prepared to document your legitimate uses of the site.

    Since you've already been contacted, it won't help you now to put a bunch of "real content" up at the site's web address. But it sounds like you've been using it for email for some time now. You may want to search mailing list archives online to find old examples of your sending legitimate emails using the domain. If any are for vaguely-business purposes, so much the better.

    I don't imagine you'll need notarized statements from friends and relatives confirming that you've been emailing them from this domain for X period of time. But if this goes to a UDRP action, you may want to get them anyway!

    You're already on pretty good ground here if the domain really is just your last name. But it still doesn't hurt to have documentation ready.

    (2) Don't make careless offers; know what "bad faith" is.

    The other company approaching you is great. You don't have to do anything, they're the ones putting themselves out there.

    But if you write back and say "I'll take a million dollars for it," or "how about a hundred dollars," you're putting yourself at a little risk. The risk in both cases is that now WIPO will treat you as attempting to profit from the domain. The specific risk of making an outrageously high offer is that you can be treated as not bargaining in good faith; the specific risk of making a lowball offer is that they may accept it and you'll (in the end) have to give it up for that.

    Be very cagy about even beginning the bargaining process. Instead of naming a price, or even stating your serious intent to sell, you might begin with

    "I wasn't planning on selling it, so I didn't have a price in mind. I'm using it and it would be inconvenient to give it up. But if you're really interested, make me an offer."

    This establishes from the beginning that your purpose in originally acquiring the domain was not to profit by reselling it. In particular, not to profit by reselling it to someone who holds a trademark on the domain name -- that will definitely get it taken away from you on grounds of "bad faith." You further establish this by not stating a price, which could also be taken as evidence of bad faith.

    If you get an offer that you're willing to accept, get them to send it in writing, not email, of course. Depending on how much money it is, it may be worth a trademark lawyer's fee to either draw up a quick contract or confirm that their offer is something you'd be willing to sign. (And do find a lawyer who knows something about trademark.)

    If you get an offer that you're not willing to accept, do not make a counteroffer with a specific price. Don't even say you'd sell it for a higher amount. Say rather something like,

    "I'm not interested in selling the domain at that price. If you'd like to make another offer, I'd be willing to consider it."

    Until you have their signature on paper, your primary goal is not to do or say anything that could be taken as evidence that you have either registered or used the domain in bad faith, because that will let them simply take it away from you and you'll get nothing. And if they hold a trademark on your name, your asking for money is evidence of bad faith.

    If you think you're able to bargain while following those rules, then first go read about the UDRP and get the real, formal definitions of the rules instead of my paraphrases. I'll let you google it; also, google on [udrp site:slashdot.org] for examples of how the deck has been stacked against individuals like yourself since 1999. Good luck.

  158. I had a similar event occur... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I told them the following...

    That I was willing to relinquish this domain as I was pretty much just using it for personal stuff.

    And that I wasn't looking to rip anyone off, but would need some compensation for my having to migrate everything along with the loss of links to that domain, and any work entailed.

    And told them to make what they believed to be a fair offer. They offered $500 and as I was pretty much retiring the domain for the most part. I felt it was fair and charging much more would be dishonest. So I accepted.

  159. What I did by omarius · · Score: 1

    I've received unsolicited offers for a domain of my own, and I handled it thusly: I asked the potential buyer to get a domain name appraisal done by an independent organization that does that sort of thing and share the result with me. They never called back, so I suppose they were dismayed by the number. I wasn't very keen to sell, so I reckon it worked out well enough.

  160. Front Page by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    Any subject hit Front Page these days. Lack of news?

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  161. Looks legit by WindShadow · · Score: 1
    The question is, will the money compensite you for the hassle. Only you can say, and as noted earlier you can put mail forwarding in the deal, so people who don't know who or where you are will still be able to reach you.

    Being in the midst of a similar deal, I can just advise that you get a good lawyer to write the contract. It can be profitable, however.

  162. talking from experience... by llsouder · · Score: 0

    My company offered to buy the domain. The person said, "NO" We asked if they would be so kind as to link our site to their homepage e.g. "If you were looking for... click here" I am sure there was money involved in this request.
    They said NO!

    So the company staff lawyers took it from them because we already were an already established trademark. In this case it was two names mashed together.

    I would work with them if it's a company because they most likely are paying for lawyers anyway and this just gives them something to do!

    --
    What
  163. What I did when this happened to me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened to me a couple years ago. At the time, my biggest concern was that the purchaser would try to take any willingness to sell as "proof" of cybersquatting, and would try to take me to arbitration. In addition, I felt no great need to sell it. In a nutshell, what happened:

    - They asked if I would sell
    - I replied I had had the domain for 11 years, and used the email address
    - They offered me $8,000
    - I respectfully declined, saying the usefulness of the domain was worth more personally to me than that
    - They asked for a counter offer
    - I replied I wasn't in any burning need for money, but that if the proceeds did something like pay off my house, I'd certainly sell. Taking taxes into account, that would work out to about $95,000 or so.

    I really thought this would be the last I heard, but the saga continued:

    - They counter offered with $30,000
    - I replied that they evidently were serious, and that after discussion with my wife, we would certainly let the domain name go for $70,000
    - As expected, they split the difference with an offer to $50,000
    - I accepted

    Lessons to take from this? The best position to be in is to not require the money, and not care if you sell it or not. This relieves you of pressure, and allows you to make rational choices.

  164. Forward DNS for Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you could be kind and give them DNS forwarding. You keep control of the domain (and your mail) and forward the DNS to whatever IP they ask.
    Imagine that...doing something nice for someone, and not gouging them!

  165. Give it away! by gmatz · · Score: 1

    This may sound dorky, but maybe you should just give the domain to them! HOLD ON!! Hear me out! You are not using it for a commercial purpose, so prehaps you are better off with a a .org, or other TLD which might be more appropriate than a .com.

    Wouldn't that make you a good netizen and boost your slashdot karma? Or would it just make you a putz? :-)

  166. what legal trap for gods sakes by unity100 · · Score: 1

    its an everyday domain sale incident. sell it through sedo.com or something, with escrow.

  167. Mod parent up! by Trillan · · Score: 1

    This is how I handled it, too, although in my case I was dealing with a one-man shop and settled for a lot less. But we both walked away happy: I got rid of a domain name that I didn't really need anymore, and they got their first choice. :)

  168. It's a business... by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

    It is a business after all. I don't write code if a company isn't willing to pay me. Based on some of the specs I've had to deal with, a number of these projects could be classified as stupid. But then, it is their job to run their business, I'm just a code monkey.

  169. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  170. future business venture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You probably won't get offered more than a few hundred dollars, so if you're really not going to use it, then go sell it and recoup your domain fees. But if you have ever considered running your own business and your name isn't terribly long/hard to spell, then you may wish to hold on to this domain a little while longer until you have a better idea of what the future holds.

  171. not true by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Two (or more) companies can own the same name for different trademarks in different contexts. You can sell computers with the brand Nissan because Nissan motors failed to register their trademark for that region and that purpose. As long as Nissan Computer Corp continues to defend their trademark, it will have to stand. Once they give up then pretty much all uses of the name "Nissan" would revert to Nissan Motors because they are the only one defending it.

    A better example is if your last name is Mayo, and you try to start "Mayo Auto Clinic". Then the actual "Mayo Clinic" might try to stop you if they are concerned it might confuse patients(customers). Also a hospital has a lot more leeway in a court than a Japanese car company.

    Trademarks really are not supposed to be about whoever has the most money wins. But they are sometimes.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:not true by alienw · · Score: 1

      That is completely untrue. If Nissan is a well known brand (which it is, along with Nike, Coca Cola, and so on), they can stop others from using their marks for any type of product. That is called trademark dilution. That's why you can't sell Marlboro-branded computers or Microsoft-branded cigarettes. If they tried to sue the Nissan Computer guy for dilution, they would most likely win. There was basically an identical case with panavision.com (Panavision vs. Toeppen), and Panavision was the winner.

  172. If your name was Coke... by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    If your name was Coke you'd probably have many other issues to deal with much more important than the sale of your domain name. Probably not the least of which would be paying off exorbitant bills for psychotherapy required because of the merciless torment you received as a child.

  173. I'd do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd offer to sell the domain with a binding permanent agreement that all email sent to "yourname@domain.com" will be forwarded or accessable to you. that way they can take the domain and use it for their purposes, but you get to keep it for your email usage needs.

  174. Re:Maybe the sender is lonely and wants a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the submitter stripped out the personally identifying parts. Also, as the company in question is from the Netherlands (.nl) then did it occur to you that English may not be their first language?

  175. Prinsegracht, Den Haag by hawkink · · Score: 1

    Um, Prinsegracht in Den Haag actually.

  176. Keep it simple. by PatReardon · · Score: 1

    Don't get excited.

    Do NOT imply it is for sale - now or ever.

    Just say that your domain name, because it is your real name, is very useful to you at this time, and it isn't likely that they could compensate you for the loss if you ever were to sell it.

    Don't worry. They'll "get it." And they will also see that your are not going to sell it cheap.

    Do NOT make an offer. Let them make THE OFFERS; let them keep making offers.

    Initially just respond with a simple, THANKS, but NO THANKS.

    If they ever did make an attractive enough offer, don't say yes. Ask: If I did agree, how could we handle it?
    Keep in mind one alternative is for you to lease it to them. CAUTION. Inflation is REAL. It is impossible to know a fair price 10 years out. If this is a possibility, get your own PROFESSIONAL advice.

    Meanwhile, YOU learn how to handle it and do it the SAFE way.

    Don't be intimidated. Their offshore business does not trump your own name, a name that you did NOT register with the intent to sell. You have possession and have every right to retain your own name.
    You should know that it is said that a "nice company" like McDonald's (XXX Trillion Sold) has tried to intimidate people whose family name is McDonald, intimidate them into giving up naming rights that have NOTHING TO DO WITH FOOD.


    Patrick R.

  177. A simple question with a simple answer by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    If you don't care, give (or sell) them the name.

    If you like your transfer contract could require them to forward mail to you for a fixed term (e.g. 5 years) and even give you reversion rights (e.g. if they go out of business or sell their company to a bigger company you get the domain back or have the right to buy it back or something). They might not want to agree to those terms in which case you can part as friends (or you could say ok, I can live without the thing they don't like). That's how business is done.

    Absolutely minimal lawyering required, and they could pay for your tiny legal bill. If you pick a good lawyer the bill need only be for an hour or two. Even an outrageously expensive lawyer won't be too much if it's only an hour or two.

  178. Re:I've sold domains from unsolicited offers as we by Raenex · · Score: 1

    I registered a domain name about 6 years ago with the intent of starting a company [...] but I had a pipeline of about 20 other web projects in front of the one I was considering for this domain

    Just out of curiosity, how many of these projects have you completed in the six years since?

  179. If you don't like asking for cash by QuestionsNotAnswers · · Score: 1

    You can ask them to donate an amount to an organization you would like to support, but wouldn't normally give the cash to. I did this and got the buyer to donate some few hundred dollars to EFF. They did the donation, and I rang up the EFF directly to check that the money was donated. If you want pure cash, have a look for domain escrow services - they are supposed to help prevent fraud.

    --
    Happy moony
  180. Dude, they've already lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nissan has *already lost the f*cking case*.

    They've lost. They can't get the domain. And they've pissed away a lot of money that they could have used to just pay the guy. Everybody wins in that situation. Now everybody is lost. I agree with the parent. The guy who pursued this with lawyers at Nissan should be fired.

  181. It was Dick the butcher, not Jack Cade by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    When Shakespeare wrote "first kill all the lawyers"* his ire was somewhat misdirected.

    You know it was Jack Cade, the villian of the piece, that said this right?

    FYI: Apparently, it was "Dick the butcher", and not "Jack Cade". Cade did concur, though.

    Sources:
    * http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Part_2
    * http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Henry_VI,_part_2/13.html
    * http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/2ws0210.txt

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  182. It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not if they came to him first

    No, that is a trap that is often used by someone trying to get your domain name. They send you a letter offering some ridiculously small amount (like $5), and if you respond back with, "no, but I'll sell it to you for $5000", then you are then accused of cybersquatting for profit and your offer could be considered evidence against you of a desire to profit. See the Mike Rowe case (mikerowesoft.com); that's exactly what Microsoft did to him.

    See also http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/001918P&exact=1.


    Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(B)(i), a court may consider several factors to determine whether a defendant acted in bad faith, including ... ...(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

    The original poster doesn't seem to meet this, but you might be advised to first:
      - have them make you an offer
      - ask them to write a letter asserting that they believe that you are not cybersquatting and asking you to enter negotiations with them to determine reasonable terms.

  183. Take the money and grin all the way to the bank. by DearOldDad · · Score: 1

    Take the money and run to the bank!!!

  184. It doesn't always work out well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a real horror story I could tell you.

    Sincerely yours,

    J. R. Slashdot

  185. Party trick? by nietsch · · Score: 1

    Although dutch is also spoken at parties, it is not a party trick, it is a language spoken by ~20 milion people. If english is not your native language, people might have some trouble with it. Techies are hired for their technical knowledge, not their fluency in English or Swahili. Your apparent refusal to translate my previous answer in dutch illustrates my point: it is pretty arrogant to demand foreigners to speak your language flawlessly when communicating with you.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:Party trick? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Techies are hired for their technical knowledge, not their fluency in English

      Techies are hired as professionals. Part of being professional is reasonable fluency in the language spoken at your place of work or in the language spoken by the people you are expected to deal with in the course of your work.
       
       

      Your apparent refusal to translate my previous answer in dutch illustrates my point: it is pretty arrogant to demand foreigners to speak your language flawlessly when communicating with you.

      This conversation was, and is, being conducted in English. The arrogant ass in this conversation is the one who refused to continue the conversation in the original language without consulting other parties in the conversation. The ignorant ass in this conversation is the one that believes such a switch 'proved' anything.

    2. Re:Party trick? by nietsch · · Score: 1

      I'm so sorry you don't speak any foreign languages. You must feel very inadequate?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you