Buying a Domain From a Cybersquatter

Nevo writes "A partner and I are in the planning stages of a business. We've decided on a name that we'd like to use but the domain name is already registered. The owner has a single 'search' page up (similar to the one at www.goggle.com)... clearly not a legitimate business interest, but since we don't own a trademark on this name it doesn't qualify as bad faith, I don't think. Does anyone have any experience buying domains from these operators? Do you have any advice on how to approach the owners of these domains to get them at a reasonable cost?"

Comments

Unfortunate

[eldavojohn]

When I've accidentally typed in an address wrong, I've been brought to a page with "premium" domains that a squatter is sitting on listing the prices for them. They were all pretty bland and stupid sites like a000.org or MedicMan.net but they listed the prices anywhere from $100 to $5,000. Unfortunately what you have to realize if you're going to make this offer is that they're doing this for those few times a year they strike it rich so it's probably going to be closer to $5,000 or more. If the site is like two last names or something readable, it's probably going to be pretty high cost. Far less than a court case you probably wouldn't win though.

The last thing you need to realize is that whatever money you give this guy is just going to fund him to buy up more domains and keep his hands on others longer. If you wanted to do the most conscious thing for the community, you would just find another domain and not give this scum one red cent.

Re:Unfortunate

[AvitarX]

A co-worker of mine did that for a while.

He purchased a bunch of green bullshit names and then put add pages on them. When people contacted him about purchase he would be like, well it means a lot too me and I want to start a site, but I haven't done much yet, what is it worth to you?

Generally that was the end f it, but pretty much any offer was accepted.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

A co-worker of mine did that for a while.

He purchased a bunch of green bullshit names and then put add pages on them. When people contacted him about purchase he would be like, well it means a lot too me and I want to start a site, but I haven't done much yet, what is it worth to you?

Generally that was the end f it, but pretty much any offer was accepted.

I'd like to meet your coworker in the alley behind where you work. If you give him a whole bunch of whiskey so that he can barely stand before he gets there, maybe I could offer you some money once the trunk of my car shuts?

It would mean a lot to me ...

Re:Unfortunate

[ShieldW0lf]

I'd like to meet your coworker in the alley behind where you work. If you give him a whole bunch of whiskey so that he can barely stand before he gets there, maybe I could offer you some money once the trunk of my car shuts?

It would mean a lot to me ...

Someone mod this guy up. He's got the right idea.

Re:Unfortunate

[commodore64_love]

I don't agree. Let's suppose owned a prime piece of real estate right next to an interstate exit ramp. So far nobody's offered anything, but if an Exxon or McDonalds approached me, am I "scum" because I ask for a lot of money to sell my real estate? No it's kind opportunity cost. If they want to setup show in a highly-visible location, then they'll have to pay for it.

Or they could put their station/restaurant someplace else (1 mile away) that's less-visible but cheaper to buy. Same applies to website real estate. You want exxon-exit100.com, then you'll have to pay for it. If you don't, buy a cheaper website like gastation163418.com - less prime but saves money.

It's nothing personal; just business.

Re:Unfortunate

[Ed Avis]

The last thing you need to realize is that whatever money you give this guy is just going to fund him to buy up more domains and keep his hands on others longer.

That's the same if you buy anything from anybody. Do you believe that domain names should not be bought and sold but handed out by Santa according to who is good and who is naughty? If you accept that people have the right to resell domain names they own, it's entirely their own business what fee to charge. Of course if someone else owns something you want, and won't give it up without payment, it's natural to feel aggrieved and vilify the other person. That doesn't mean they are scum. It is the odd system of domain names and artificial scarcity that causes domain names to have a high value. Either pay what it's worth (and no, what it's worth is not the same as 'the price I think I should be able to buy it for') or choose a different domain.

Re:Unfortunate

[billcopc]

The problem of course is that a domain name is not a piece of land.

In meatspace, if a business sets up in a poor location, it affects their traffic because it is a PHYSICAL business. More importantly, no land = no business. On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers. We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.

For those mental midgets who require an analogy, you're not squatting a piece of land, it's more like an unlit signpost.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

So real state speculation in a capitalist society is frowned upon now? Here's a solution: Move to Cuba or Venezuela, you'll be happier there.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing personal; just business.

When watching movies, people cheer when the douchebag that keeps saying this gets shot to death (or fed into a wood chipper, or boiled alive, etc.)

Re:Unfortunate

[RichardJenkins]

All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers.

Slightly off-topic for the subject at hand - but it is also necessary for a browser to decide if an ssl certificate is appropriate for a given website, and allows for virtualhosts on a single web server. And allows smtp to work.

Re:Unfortunate

[aaarrrgggh]

I appreciate the idealism here, but it isn't always so simple. We paid a squatter $3k for our domain when we really had better things to spend our money on; that was 5% of our start-up capital. We still regard it as the best investment we made. (Our original name was 25 characters and we got down to 7)

Just be sure to set up a backup domain name in case things fall through and to give yourself better bargaining position. I think he wanted $6k for it.

Another word to the wise-- don't make a domain extortion be your first purchase for a start-up. Sort out more important things first like getting clients. If your web presence is all you have going, things get harder.

Re:Unfortunate

[bleh-of-the-huns]

The big difference, the cost of land is a significantly higher then the cost of a domain, registering a domain for $15 and sitting on it trying to sell it for $5000, is wrong if then intent is to register 1000's of domains and sell them for profit, especially when many of those domains are not even paid for and are just domain tasting (google it, I am not going to explain it).

If you want to spend a few million dollars on 1000's of various physical properties, thats a different story, you put out the money, its an investment in something tangible, domains are not physically tangible and cost almost nothing.

Re:Unfortunate

[LordVader717]

The difference is that cybersquatters use trademarks that essentially don't belong to them and that which they have no intention of using. While real estate costs real money, registering domain names is usually a negligable fee.

Re:Unfortunate

[Rogerborg]

Only on Slashdot could a post that begins with an admission that the author can't even type properly, and then meanders off into speculation, supposition and baseless invective be rated "Informative".

Re:Unfortunate

[malkavian]

Bad analogy. More like (where domain tasting in in play, which is a fair portion of the time) you have a shop selling land at a given price for the area. You then prevent anyone entering this shop to bid on the land at a fair price, so nobody can buy it.
You then sit a crack hut on this site, and claim that "it's a fair use", and you take a cut of the crack sales as "rent".
When the rest of the area becomes built up (by whatever means), all of a sudden, this piece of land is valuable, but still nobody can get in to buy this plot of land from the vendor, at the fair price.
One day, somebody asks to purchase this, and you quote them a price 100 fold the price of the surrounding land plots, because otherwise they can take the business elsewhere.

It's legal, but it's definitely not ethical.

Re:Unfortunate

[jsalbre]

Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society. I'm all for capitalisim and making a profit, but buying something just so you can turn around and sell it to someone else for more money, without having made any improvements is just jackassery.

Re:Unfortunate

[LKM]

Let's suppose land is very cheap. There are a lot of valid businesses and families who would like to build offices and houses. Unfortunately, somebody with no interest in the land at all got there first, bought all the land, and is now selling it for a ten thousand times as much as he paid.

Sure, it's legal. Perhaps it's even a valid business. But he's still a scumbag because he's doing nothing productive other than costing people money who actually want to do something productive.

Re:Unfortunate

[mdm-adph]

(Our original name was 25 characters and we got down to 7)

Aarrggh?

Re:Unfortunate

[mabhatter654]

As the original question is about purchasing a name for a company he hasn't started yet. That's not technically "cybersquatting", they got his name first. I agree, this is more of a "gold rush" issue where people stake claims on a bunch of land they don't intend to work, just in case somebody else might make money off "their" domain idea. The way the government dealt with it was requiring presence and requiring taxes be paid to keep physical land based on it's value, if you can't afford the property tax, then the land gets redistributed to somebody that can make enough money from the property to pay it.... There used to be a time "real" land was just as plentiful as domain names.. and we did just fine.

I think the solution was ICANN's idea to make the 20 cent fee non refundable, or to force registrars to actually take the money and stop "tasting" periods. Most of the professionals aren't paying, they just keep "tasting" names between shell companies. If there was a little bit of "treading water" added it would be more costly. It would still happen, but people would have to pay the $10 so they'd be "stuck" with it... for 10 or even 100 names that's not much money, but for the 10,000 these guys are running it would at least tie up their wallets.

Re:Unfortunate

[fifedrum]

that's nonesense

you purchase the property, you pay your taxes, you mow the lawn (if the municipality requires it), there's nothing wrong with speculating on property. Real or imaginary.

Re:Unfortunate

[mrchaotica]

Not only that, but speculation is also the root cause of every financial collapse in modern history (except those caused by war), including the one we're going through now. It's not just "jackassery," it's also harmful to society at large!

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying thousands of shares of a troubled company for less than $1 each and then hoping later, when the company recovers, to sell them at a huge profit is also scumbaggy then? It seems to be the same thing.

Re:Unfortunate

[mh1997]

Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society.

Even if you are speculating that training will provide you with the skills to get a job? How about if you are an employer and you are speculating that hiring some kid fresh out of school will bring profit or new ideas to the company?

Re:Unfortunate

[mabhatter654]

That's like what Ticketmaster does.

Thinking about it, the domain name problem is more like Ticket Scalping than squatting. In this case, it's not "cybersquatting" because the poster is trying to pick out a name... on the other hand the meaningful names are all taken by somebody who happened to be in line first and bought a bunch of stuff they didn't need.. like a ticket scalper does. Rules are pretty harsh against ticket scalpers, even though they generally paid their cash up front to get the tickets fair and square. The question is how to get the public to view it like scalping and not "real estate".

Re:Unfortunate

[El Torico]

Not only that, but speculation using debt is also the root cause of every financial collapse in modern history (except those caused by war), including the one we're going through now. It's not just "jackassery," it's also harmful to society at large!

There. Fixed that for you.
Debt is indentured servitude.

Re:Unfortunate

[BrokenHalo]

No, what you say is nonsense. If you buy up a domain name to which you have no legitimate right, just for the purpose of extorting money from or preventing use by someone who does, then you are just being an asswipe. Just because the law doesn't prevent you from doing this doesn't mean your action has any moral legitimacy.

By your reasoning, the Mafia's protection rackets in the 1920s and '30s would have been perfectly legitimate, since there was no legal system to prevent it.

Re:Unfortunate

[AvitarX]

My co-worker is simply someone who could use some extra money (trust me, he doesn't make that much).

He did so by making a little bit off of advertising with some in-expensive real-estate (a domain name). Sometimes the real-estate has value to someone else, and he can make a little extra.

He didn't get rich off of it, but he was able to have a little bit of spending cash, and didn't cost anybody else significant money.

That was really my point, that a lot of this is just normal people looking for a little bit of beer/electronics money.

As to the real-estate analogies below, this is simply a lot of billboard space being valued more by someone else.

Re:Unfortunate

[Registered Coward v2]

Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society. I'm all for capitalisim and making a profit, but buying something just so you can turn around and sell it to someone else for more money, without having made any improvements is just jackassery.

While "speculators" are the current MostEvilThing (tm); they provide a valuable service to an economy.

Consider firms that hedge commodities that they use - if they can't add certainty to their costs through hedges they are at the mercy of market swings. In order to hedge, someone needs to take an opposite position - both sides are speculating on future prices; to reap a potential benefit.

Speculation is not the problem; the failure to quantify risks and understand what you are actually buying is what causes problems.

People buy many things - stocks, land, art, coins - as investments they hope will increase in value. Just because they stick them in a box and wait does not mean they are being jackasses.

Re:Unfortunate

[tnk1]

Yes, I've always found that the analogies to real estate break down when you realize that the operative work in real estate is "real".

Re:Unfortunate

[timeOday]

"Business" is not a limited natural resource. Land is. People deserve money for developing real estate, but people who get rich simply speculating on unimproved properties are leeches on society, because they create nothing yet get to spend lots of money on things that other people work to create. There are thousands of people across the country who think they are special because they have lots of money when all they did was live in a place with lots of housing inflation. They only worse people are their heirs. It's funny how people get all worked up about "welfare moms" who take a few $K out of the economy without working for it when there are other people putting in nothing and taking out millions due to quirks in the economy, and how we manage natural resources.

Re:Unfortunate

[Ed Avis]

I would also add that 'scalpers' add value for the original seller of the tickets. It can happen that speculators buy the tickets with the intention of reselling them, but end up stuck with them because nobody wants them. So some risk is transferred from the event organizer to the speculators.

Re:Unfortunate

[BrokenHalo]

Ever traded stocks?

That isn't really relevant. Sure, you might be speculating on the value of those stocks, but while you hold them you have a commitment to the future of that company. What we are talking about here is a situation where someone deliberately asserts a claim to something he has no intention of ever owning, just to extort money from legitimate enterprises.

Re:Unfortunate

[Skreems]

We've become used to the idea that the theft and privatization of the commons was justified for physical real estate. The way the same thing happened again in such a short time in this new virtual (but just as scarce) resource just drives home how fucked up some aspects of private ownership are.

Re:Unfortunate

[schon]

Both scalpers and squatters add value. [...] Domain squatters are similar. They help allocate the good domains to those who are willing to pay for them.

Care to explain the "value" that's been added? What, exactly has been created? Answer: NOTHING.

I fully support squatters and do not understand the hatred for them.

That's because you're a moron.

Re:Unfortunate

[Arathrael]

Then the $100 buyer need not wait in line all night and sleep in the rain to get a ticket

Personally, I avoid waiting in line all night and sleeping in the rain by buying from one of those ticket sites they have on this new-fangled internet thing you've probably heard so much about. There's also often the option of using those devices that let you talk to people from distant locations, what're they called... oh yes. Phones.

I can't remember the last event I went to that required me to queue and buy tickets from an actual box office.

Re:Unfortunate

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Scalpers add value for ticket owners. If I own a ticket, and decide I don't want to go to the event anymore, I can sell it to a scalper. Without a scalper, I'd have to sell it myself. This ready secondary market benefits the ticket holder.

This could easily be handled without having the secondary market charge a premium.

Assume the box office is selling tickets to an event for $35. But people are willing to pay $100 for the event. Scalpers allocate the tickets to those who are willing to pay $100 for the ticket

Yes. The raise the price to $100. Capturing more of the surplus value to the consumer is good because... you flunked Econ 101 and think that makes that market more efficent? Hint, it doesn't, at least not any more than waiting in line does.

But, you say, the scalper also has to wait in line/be lucky on ticketmaster. The difference is scale... the scalper spreads that cost out over many people. But that cost is there to maximize the pleasure that the show/event provides, to ensure that the people who care the most get in. It does an end run around the system. If there were proxies who represented exactly one person in line, fine.

(All this of course comes at the expense of those who are willing to wait all night for the $35 ticket, but will not or cannot pay $100 for the ticket.)

And that's okay because?

They help allocate the good domains to those who are willing to pay for them. Just this weekend I heard of ancestry.com. I instantly knew what it was. That great name saved the business from having to build a brand. If it had been "avalea.com" instead, I would have said "what's that?" This domain should be allocated to someone who is willing to put the capital into building a good business with it.

As opposed to two guys in a garage who would have written the whole thing over a few years? One of the beautiful things about the infomation age is most entrepuners can trade time for money (or vice versa) to get things done. This allows far more companies to start. I fail to see why making it more expensive to introduce a new product (in this fashion) is good.

Besides, if that's your real objection, there are clever ways to allocate resources based on investment, without needing to be explicitly paid for. Make a class of domain names require a few colocated servers with failover, for instance. It requires that people invest serious capital, without draining that capital for no purpose.

A few hundred to a few thousand dollars is nothing to pay if a person really wants to build a business.

Ever try to start a business? Most new businesses have razor-thin margins, and that can easily bankrupt them.

Oh, no, you just heard about the VC backed businesses, not the 99.7% of businesses that are small and employ over half of the (non-agricultural) workforce.

Re:Unfortunate

[networkBoy]

So the flip side:
I have a client that is three years past due on paying me for hosting & registrations...

(yeah, I know, shame on me mostly).

Anyway, yes she's three years past due on 5 active domains (all redir to one site). I've been covering her, but in reality I'm planning on taking all but one domain and "parking them". Nice older gal, trying to make some money selling artwork. I'm willing to charity case one domain for her, but not five.

Now the million dollar question:
Am I a sleeze for parking the other four domains and trying to sell them? (I think not).
-nB

Re:Unfortunate

[feepness]

Yes, I've always found that the analogies to real estate break down when you realize that the operative work in real estate is "real".

Does that make the internet "fake estate"?

Re:Unfortunate

[rbarreira]

Car robbers add value.

Car robbers add value for car owners. If I own a car, don't care about money and decide I don't want it anymore, I can wait for a robber to take the car. Without a car robber, I'd have to sell it myself.

Car robber also add value for car purchasers who want to pay a smaller price. Assume the car shop is selling used cars for $50,000. But people are willing to pay $10,000. Car robbers allocate the cars to those who are willing to pay $2,000 for the car.

I fully support car robbers and do not understand the hatred for them.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either a total fucking idiot, or a scalper. Not that there's a lot of difference.

"Scalpers add value for ticket owners. If I own a ticket, and decide I don't want to go to the event anymore, I can sell it to a scalper. Without a scalper, I'd have to sell it myself. This ready secondary market benefits the ticket holder.

Except you casually ignore the fact that scalpers buy tickets by the grundle as much as they can, using programs to spam buy tickets from websites, sending teams to ticket boots to buy group lots, etc. So what this does is make it harder for legitimate ticker purchasers to buy tickets at face-value. I have had this happen to me at least twice in the last year where a concert goes on sale, and an hour later all of the GA tickets are gone. Yet sure as hell , there are plenty available on craigslist IMMEDIATELY afterwards for over twice face-value. Scalpers don't add value by allowing you to sell a ticket you don't want anymore - that's what craigslist is for. Your example of them being these benevolent middlemen just trying to help the consumer is bullshit. If you can't sell a ticket yourself over the INTERNET, you're a fucking moron. PAYING someone to sell it for you just proves that point tenfold.

Scalpers also add value for ticket purchasers who are willing to pay the price. Assume the box office is selling tickets to an event for $35. But people are willing to pay $100 for the event. Scalpers allocate the tickets to those who are willing to pay $100 for the ticket. Then the $100 buyer need not wait in line all night and sleep in the rain to get a ticket. The scalper also benefits the person who decides to go to the event at the last minute, and is willing to pay the price. (All this of course comes at the expense of those who are willing to wait all night for the $35 ticket, but will not or cannot pay $100 for the ticket.)

I fail to see where these people who WANT to pay 3x the price of a ticket are coming from. If you ask all these people "willing" to pay $100 for a ticket if they would choose having one for them available at $35 because no one is scalping them, or $100 for the convenience of someone else buying them first, which do you think they will pick? Do you know many people who LIKE being overcharged? No? Then I have news for you buddy -- jacking up the price of an item because you got it first doesn't 'value add' anything.

Scalpers are scumbags who take advantage of the fact that people have jobs, lives, etc. It would be nice if the fairy-tale world you lived in where scalpers were providing a legitimate service abounded, but that's not the case. Sure, in some cases it's nice to be able to get those last minute tickets to a sold out show. That's a far cry different than not being able to attend your favorite show in GA because some jackass bought 2000 tickets to scalp an hour before you get off work. And that's the reality of scalpers - they cheat the system to abuse the loyalty of fans so they can pocket some cash for themselves.

Domain squatters are similar. They help allocate the good domains to those who are willing to pay for them.

Domain Squatters are pretty much the same in my opinion. These are scumbags and jerkoffs who see a chance to maybe make some quick cash for a little initial investment. They're not interested in preserving the integrity of your domain name, or selling it to someone who will really 'build a business' . They're in it for themselves, only themselves, and they will generally fuck you until you're blind if it means making an extra dime.

Just this weekend I heard of ancestry.com. I instantly knew what it was. That great name saved the business from having to build a brand. If it had been "avalea.com" instead, I would have said "what's that?" This domain should be allocated to someone who is willing to put the capital into building a good busin

Re:Unfortunate

[mariushm]

The easiest solution would be to have the price of the domain NOT refundable and more expensive. Something like 30$ for the first year, 15$ for each year that comes, and keep the values in tune with the dollar value.

The guys that keep tons of domains do it by buying and dropping it within the allowed time limit so they only lose a few pennies and the instant they drop the domain another company that's owned by the same person (or group, whatever) buys the domain back.

Sure, companies will have to work harder and check the credit card better to prevent fraud and so on, but I'm sure they'll also get a better commission out of it.

Re:Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully support squatters and do not understand the hatred for them.

Here's why they're illegal and people hate them:
 
Say ConcertX has 1000 tickets for sale, real people buy 500 and scalpers buy 500. The scalpers charge double what the tickets normally cost and are able to unload 2/3 of their tickets at the inflated rate. The net result is that the concert goers on average have paid 40% more for admission and ConcertX loses out on concessions/tshirt sales from 167 concert goers. Arguably, from an economic standpoint, ConcertX should have charged double, but then they wouldn't have been able to fill the venue and give a real concert experience. Also, there is no reason that scalpers couldn't have pulled the same trick and charged quadruple once again causing the problem though on a smaller scale.
 
Domain squatters cause the same sort of problem. The "service" they provide by reselling domains is of such minimal value compared to the economic damage they cause that the practice should be abolished. Anecdotal story time: I once let a domain registration for a personal website lapse (I didn't use it much). Two days later I get an email from a squatter offering to sell it back to me for $500. How did the domain that only I'm interested in gain 100x times its market value in one year? It didn't. It's just a big scam.
 
[off topic: once again have to post as anon because whatever nitwit wrote slash did a crappy job. Can't stay logged in on chrome or IE on two different computers. -McBeer]

Re:Unfortunate

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Clearly money well spent.

Re:Unfortunate

[feepcreature]

But, it doesn't stop me from memorizing things like youtube, last.fm, etc. And I get even more annoyed at everyone's insistence on putting 'www' in front of everything. I still see people type http://www.foo.com.../

It's nearly as annoying as the people who set up their site on www.example.com (or whatever) and don't bother making example.com point to the same place. Half-wits!

Re:Unfortunate

[Minwee]

Aarrggh?

No no no, it's "Aaaaauuuugggghhhh", from the back of the throat.

Re:Unfortunate

[cayenne8]

"Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society. I'm all for capitalisim and making a profit, but buying something just so you can turn around and sell it to someone else for more money, without having made any improvements is just jackassery."

Wow!!

I have honestly never heard this point of view before..?!?!

Goodness, isn't one of the main reasons for buying anything for business, to sell it for a profit? That's why people buy gold, etc....to resell it later for profit.

How long have you held this point of view? Why exactly do you think it is bad? I just can't fathom what is wrong with investing in things for profit in the future.

Re:Unfortunate

[BarefootClown]

Yes...because taking something from its rightful owner is completely analogous to buying unused property on the open market. Good analogy.

Make an offer

[Chrisq]

If they are a squatter they will have contact info on their page. If not you can find the registered owner with WHOIS. I would make them a reasonable offer and stick to it. Remember that there may be available alternatives ( .org, .net, .us, etc.)

Re:Make an offer

[noundi]

There are always alternatives. The guy is however starting is business on the wrong end. My 2 cents are: register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark. Don't go worrying about the domain name to be perfect before you even have anything to showcase for, a domain is shit without content so focus on that first.

Re:Make an offer

[Chrisq]

do you need to rent a baseball bat?

Depending on the part of the world he is located in you may have to use a cricket bat. Don't worry, Gartner says that most hired thugs cross skill on these alternatives with a very shallow learning curve.

Re:Make an offer

[LordVader717]

The way to go is to register your trademark before trading under it - as a lot of people have painfully found out.

Re:Make an offer

[weave]

register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark.

Resisting urge to curse

I've owned a domain name in .org that is my cat's name. It's been a personal domain since then. Someone registered the .net variant of it and then trademarked the name. The .com variant was parked for years by a third party. I did a backorder on the .com and got it, and registered it.

About a year later the guy with the .net started to threaten me because he got a trademark on the name and wanted both the .org and .com. I offered to turn over the .com at no profit to myself because I didn't really need it nor was using it, but then he starts to insist I also turn over the .org variant as well.

I stood my ground and threatened to fight him as much as it took in court if necessary and sent him numerous cases where trademark doesn't mean ownership of the corresponding domain, especially if that domain is in active use and was around before the trademark.

He eventually dropped his demand for the .org.

And to think I just let him have the .com at my cost as well. I should have just let it get snapped up by a squatter and he'd have spent thousands for it.

Re:Make an offer

[noundi]

Choose a name that someone's already using, and then seize their domain for using that name?

In my understanding using and obvious cybersquatting isn't the same thing in court. If I'm not mistaken these issues occur very frequently, sort of. A while back Madonna sezied madonna.com, which was used as a legitimate adult site, not related to madonna at all. Madonna means virgin, which of course is also very related to the porn industry, so it wasn't a question of copying Madonnas brand, but rather another use for the name. Of course Madonna won this case, as you understand, and thus she could seize madonna.com.

This example might not be 100% related to the issue at hand, but it proves that domain seizures due to trademark can and have occurred across markets.

And FYI just because there was no outrage on Slashdot it doesn't mean it didn't happen. :)

Re:Make an offer

[MightyYar]

A while back Madonna sezied madonna.com, which was used as a legitimate adult site,

Actually, while it had been used as an adult site in the past, when Madonna sued for it the site was simply squatting the domain. From the WIPO Complaint:

By March 4, 1999, it appears that Respondent removed the explicit sexual content from the web site. By May 31, 1999, it appears that the site merely contained the above notice, the disputed domain name and the statement "Coming soon Madonna Gaming and Sportsbook."

But the most damning bit:

By his own admission, Respondent has registered a large number of other domain names, including names that matched the trademarks of others. Other domain names registered by Respondent include <wallstreetjournal.com> and <edgaronline.com>.

So IMHO, this guy was a squatter and deserved to have madonna.com taken away. It takes some brass balls to register wallstreetjournal.com :)

Re:Make an offer

[gstoddart]

My 2 cents are: register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark.

What the hell? What about people who are legitimately using the domain for their own business.

You're talking about potentially seizing domain from people who also have a right to them. People have a habit of thinking they can extend their trademark into areas of business in which they don't actually conduct business.

Now, if you're talking about people who could only be registering domain names because they are close to an actual company, fine. But, blatantly saying "go ahead, get yourself started and trademarked, and then seize from anyone who was there first", I call bullshit.

Trademark isn't a magic wand.

Cheers

Re:Make an offer

[weiserfireman]

I had a similar event.

I registered a .US domain name to use as an email domain for family. The name is the same as the name of a joint family reunion we have every year. I've had it 8 years, only have about 10 email accounts on it. Just family.

Last year the company using the .com version of it tried to bully me into giving them my .US version. Claimed I was cybersquattting and tried to point at the lack of a webpage as evidence of the squatting. I had to present evidence of its use as email for the past several years.

I got to keep my domain, but it was annoying.

Financing Options Available

[shoemakc]

I was at a wedding over the weekend and one of the people at our table was talking about how their son runs a fairly profitable business in providing capital specifically for the purchasing of domain names. I can't recall if the business model involved a fixed interest rate, or a percentage of income, but it's the sort thing i never thought you could finance. I wonder how long before they start packaging them and selling them as securities on Wall Street :-)

-Chris

Re:Financing Options Available

[MrMr]

You married to the mob?
Could be a story in that.

How badly do you need that address?

[Ihlosi]

(And whatever the answer to that question is - never, ever give it to the cybersquatter).

Don't sound too interested when talking to them, mention possible alternatives. Lower your offer if the negotiations drag out - cybersquatters are in this for the money, and not selling the name means that they're not making any.

Re:How badly do you need that address?

[Ihlosi]

mention possible alternatives.

Clarification: Mention the existence of possible alternatives, but not what they are (or they'll be cybersquatted, too).

Re:How badly do you need that address?

[smallfries]

Actually, if you decide that you can live without and register a completely different address then tell them all of the alternative versions they've missed that you can come up with. Even if it is just a small fee per variation for them to register you are doing your bit to make the whole thing less profitable.

Re:How badly do you need that address?

[Ihlosi]

Actually, if you decide that you can live without and register a completely different address then tell them all of the alternative versions they've missed that you can come up with. Even if it is just a small fee per variation for them to register you are doing your bit to make the whole thing less profitable.

"Here's a non-exhaustive list of possible alternatives we are considering: *insert half a bajillion randomly-created combinations of letters (checked for potential trademarks or alread-existing sites)*."

Sounds like fun. ;)

Re:How badly do you need that address?

[blackbear]

I recently looked into a (cybersquatted) domain for a client. The squatter wanted $3000.00. We said, "Take a hike." Over the next few weeks I received unsolicited offers, each one for less money. Eventually the price went below 1K, then to make-an-offer.

I was determined that my client not give these scumbags any money, so I advised against making any offers, and finally told the scumbag, "No, seriously, take hike!"

My client went with an alternative that turned out to be a better choice because he was able to trademark it. The one he originally wanted was pretty generic and was already being used in commerce in several states by several companies.

The ability to trademark is one of the reasons that so many companies have begun using made-up words in their names. Doing so also takes cybersquatters out of the picture.

no

[larry bagina]

You don't own the trademark and even if you registered for it, you're doing so too late. Either pay for it or find another name. If it's a low volume domain (or one they scooped up when it expired) they may not renew it, in which case you can get it that way, if you want to wait.

If your business plan depends on owning one specific domain then your business plan sucks.

Be Crafty - negotiate well.

[gurps_npc]

I would suggest finding another Domain that they own and first asking them if you could buy that one. That will give you a high end price. Tell them no thank you. Wait a day and say you also like the real one. Then offer to buy it at 1/2 the price they gave for the first one.

Re:Be Crafty - negotiate well.

[morgan_greywolf]

I would suggest finding another Domain that they own and first asking them if you could buy that one. That will give you a high end price. Tell them no thank you. Wait a day and say you also like the real one. Then offer to buy it at 1/2 the price they gave for the first one.

Above all else, be prepared to walk away. It's only a domain name, there are lots of others, and if the guy isn't willing to give you a decent price you can afford to pay, tell him you're not interested. It's like buying a car: there's lots of wiggle room (even more than there is with a car!). Just like in poker, you always wait until the absolute last minute to show 'em your cards.

Re:Be Crafty - negotiate well.

[Bill Dimm]

You could also try waiting till the domain expires and they have to renew and try to register it then before they do. That takes time and cunning skills.

There are so many people lined up to buy expiring domains that you really have to pay fees to a service that can pound the system with purchase requests to get one that way.

It's not going to happen

[Lord Byron II]

What do you think the name is worth? $100? $500? They'll want at least 10x that much. If you're willing to pay through the nose, then go ahead, but these people will do whatever is necessary to squeeze every last penny from you.

I would suggest either a different TLD, a different name, or a variation on the name: "MyBizInc.com" instead of "MyBiz.com".

Re:It's not going to happen

[MoonBuggy]

Will they really force you to pay that, though? I don't doubt that they'll initially ask for thousands, but when it becomes clear that the potential buyer is completely unwilling to give them that much I wouldn't be surprised to see them willing to take a few hundred rather than nothing at all.

The amount they'll be making in advertising per domain is tiny, as far as I am aware. $500 (which is an irritation, certainly, but not a huge amount in the scheme of things) should be far more tempting than just sitting on the domain collecting a few dollars a year beyond the registration cost. Sure, $5000 is more tempting than $500, but any sensible business owner will realise quite quickly that they should take the $500 when there's no chance of them getting the $5000.

Re:It's not going to happen

[_Hiro_]

I offered to cover a squatter's registration costs, $10/month hosting costs since he purchased the domain, and a 10% premium for the domain. This worked out to $120-ish.

He laughed at me and said he got that much profit a year out of letting the domain just sit and serve ads.

So we went and bought .band, .info, and .net instead for less than $120.

Re:It's not going to happen

[Lumpy]

Possibly? It's guaranteed a lie. Some of my Medium traffic sites, ones that get about 350-400 visitors a day dont net more than $80.00 a year in ad revenue. Plus I have real content not a clickfarm like a parked domain is.

Ideas

[Max Romantschuk]

One option already noted is giving a reasonable offer and sticking with it.

Another option is simply asking for a quote, but don't for the love of god tell them you're planning a business. Rather just send an informal message in the style of "I think $domain is a cool name, yadda yadda...".

Personally I'd opt for trying to figure out a name for the business that's not taken. Nonsense words that are easy to learn and not profanity in major languages are good bets.

You really need help with this?

[D-Cypell]

Surely the process is pretty simple,

Send the guy an email asking if the domain is for sale. If the owner is a *pinky to mouth* "One million dollars", kind of guy, it is unlikely that there is any approach you can take that will force him away from a ridiculous price anyway. The only advice that seems valid is, "Don't make the email sound like you are both wealthy and desperate".

Personally, I would make it a short one line email, "Is this domain for sale? If so, please respond with your asking price", then just take it from there. I like to believe that there is nobody that is still stuck in the late 90's when it comes to cybersquat domain prices, but you never know. If the price you get back from him indicates that he is acting like a 90's squatter just email back with, "Ok, thank you". Keep it terse, and keep the ball in his court. Most of all, don't get attached to this particular domain until *your* name is on the whois!

Re:You really need help with this?

[X86Daddy]

Personally, I would make it a short one line email, "Is this domain for sale? If so, please respond with your asking price", then just take it from there.

Perhaps also simulate bad grammar and spelling, etc... to play upon any assumed correllation between education and wealth. Although that might cut both ways if they assume you're a sucker.

My suggestion

[C_Kode]

Murder in the first. ;)

Re:My suggestion

[MadKeithV]

MurderInTheFirst.com was already registered.

Re:My suggestion

[ijakings]

Even more bonus points if you can make it look like the RIAA was behind it.

low ball

[tresstatus]

within the past year, my company went around purchasing the .net, .us, .biz, etc TLDs for our domain. none of them were taken except for the .net version. we called the guy up and said we were interested and asked what his asking price was. he said $2000, to which we said that was way too high. he came back to us with, "well how much do you want to offer for it". i think that our final buying price was between $300 and $500.

in that experience, i realized that some squatters are just one or two guys that sat around and registered a ton of domains for a couple of dollars a piece. they are going to use the car salesman mentality by "hit em really high... then scrape them off the ceiling so you can get the price you want to sell for". so they slap you with the $2000 as their asking price knowing that you won't pay it. they know that you won't come back with a $50 offer since their first offer was so high. if they had first said $500, then you probably wouldn't offer them as much. if you really want to play their game and you are just getting started, it might be safe to just kill your webserver while you are on the phone with them so that they can't see what type of company you are or if you has the money bags.

anyway, just go into it like you are buying a car. don't seem too interested or you will pay way more than you should.

Re:low ball

[tgrigsby]

they are going to use the car salesman mentality by "hit em really high... then scrape them off the ceiling so you can get the price you want to sell for".

That's exactly what they're doing. And just like when you go to buy a car, do your research, figure out what it's worth to you and what you can afford to pay *before* you start the negotiation. Low ball them, then scrape them off the floor so you can get the price you're comfortable with.

Make up another name

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the successful internet companies make up their own name. google, hulu, reddit, slashdot, etc. Make up a word that doesn't exist and go with it.

Maybe use a subdomain?

[MichaelSmith]

news.google.com is just as good for google as news.com would be because browsers autocomplete from left to right. I type news, the google site comes right up.

So if you want greatsite.com but thats taken then register blah.com and create a subdomain greatsite.blah.com

Down the track you may be able to snap up the domain you originally wanted, or you may have a better idea by then.

Re:Maybe use a subdomain?

[Anonymous Coward]

news.google.com is just as good for google as news.com would be because browsers autocomplete from left to right.

No, news.google.com is good for google because the fame of the google name carries through, and because it's well linked from the google web page which is hit billions of times a day.

If you're as famous as google, sure, you can name a page something like gzornik.com if you want and you will get traffic.

Re:Maybe use a subdomain?

[merreborn]

We had a subdomain-based strategy for a while, but we have a few sites that targets a less than internet-savvy audience. We discovered that they don't understand subdomains at all. When given the name greatsite.blah.com, They'd try to visit greatsite.com, or greatsiteblah.com, or just blah.com.

We're transitioning all our sites to straight-up .coms from here on out.

Depending on your audience, and goals, this may be less important, but if you're hoping to draw in less technical crowds, a straight up www.example.com-type domain is the only way to go.

Don't play by their rules.

[KyroTerra]

My boss received an e-mail from a cybersquatter that sought to sell us a URL that was very similar to a URL we currently owned. My boss, being the URL hound he is asked me to purchase it. I offered the squatterâ(TM)s auto-bid website $50, which it automatically turned down and told me I had to offer a minimum of $500. I walked from the deal, only to receive an e-mail an hour later from the squatter, agreeing to my $50 bid.

Re:Don't play by their rules.

[Gordonjcp]

I had something pretty similar a couple of weeks back. I got an email from someone squatting on the domain "lovesthepython.com", basically along the lines of "You need to buy lovesthepython.com because you have lovesthepython.org and your website is missing out on traffic because it needs to be .com or people won't think it's a legitimate website" kind of pish. They were asking IIRC $1000 for it.

I emailed them back saying that a) there is no website or indeed anything at all at lovesthepython.org because I've done nothing with it since I bought it, b) lovesthepython.com doesn't sound as good and c) no bloody way would I pay $1000 but if they really wanted it shifted I'd take it off their hands for $10. Alternatively, if they wanted lovesthepython.org I'd happily accept $1000 for it, or they could make me an offer. No reply, so I guess they're not fussed either way

Special slashdot offer - if anyone here wants to buy lovesthepython.org then you have it for £60, or a large chinese takeaway and some beer.

Obvious Solution

[charliebear]

Just wait until it expires, then swoop in and register it. /then email the squatter and ask them if they want to buy it back

Three pieces of advice

[salesgeek]

Here's a quick warning: there's a lot of scamming in the domain marktplace. It's easy for scammers to get you to buy, then never transfer the domain.

1. Set your PayPal account to draw against a credit card, not your bank account. You have both your credit card's consumer protections as well as PayPal's this way, the difference being you can actually get someone on the phone at your credit card company. When they yank the money from PayPal, suddenly PayPal will care.
2. Use an escrow service. Buyer puts the money in, you transfer the domain, and then you get paid. Most scams happen when people do direct purchases. Lots of domainers use escrow.com. It works.
3. Make sure you are dealing with a legitimate business or a real person. A little due diligence goes a long way.

Easy

[Jamamala]

Give us the address, we'll give his server so much traffic he'll be begging to give the domain away.

Re:url?

[ikkonoishi]

Telling the actual URL in question would be a bad idea as it may cause the current holder to up their asking price since it was linked on slashdot.

Don't look big

[superdana]

We buy a lot of domains where I work--a big honkin' national enterprise--but we never use our work email addresses when we approach a squatter. That way we don't tip them off to how much money we have. So, my advice is to be aware of how you present yourself, and be careful not to give the squatter the impression that you're anything more than a casual buyer. Don't mention that you have a partner, for example, and don't reveal why you want the domain.

Re:Don't look big

[willisachimp]

Additionally, remember that headers can give away info on your IP address, even from webmail.

For example:
If I send a mail from hotmail to gmail, something like the following is embedded in the headers:
(google.com: domain of myhotmailaccount@hotmail.com designates 12.34.56.78 as permitted sender)

If I traceroute 12.34.56.78, it resolves to a machine owned by my company.

How it's done - info from "the other side"

[Etylowy]

First of all what you are describing is not cybersquating - it's no trademark, not a domain typo - there is no bad faith. The domain has been registered by a domainer - a domain trader that buys premium domains treating them as an investment.
When you type in the domain name you will see a domain parking page - a website filled with some adds in order to earn some money to finance the cost of domain renewal plus sometimes a few bucks extra. The domain is not indexed by google - it's a mutual agreement between large domain parkings and google - not in index, yet with google ads.

As the domain is not registered as a clear example of cybersquating (and so is not getting a lot of traffic) you can be pretty sure it's for sale - that's where we earn money.

The domain value is based on (in no particular order):
1. domain length - the shorter the more expensive.
2. tld - .com is the most expensive
3. the acctual domain name - if it is just a bunch of unpronaucable letters it will be cheap, if it's a word it will cost ya, especially if it means something. some random examples ghdn.com < geen.com < geek.com

If you want to buy the domain make an offer, but a fair one or you will be added to ignore list after the first message. We get loads of offers which are too low by two-three orders of magnitude and reading all off them is not really an option.

Once you agree on the price do use one of the domain markets that offers escrow - sorry I can't really point you to a speciffic site, as I deal exlusively in eastern european tlds and we have some local markets.

Re:How it's done - info from "the other side"

[SQLGuru]

If you want to buy the domain make an offer, but a fair one or you will be added to ignore list after the first message. We get loads of offers which are too low by two-three orders of magnitude and reading all off them is not really an option.

I think this is the key sticking point. What is "too low"? We all know that your costs are $10 per year (probably less due to bulk, but let's just go with that number) plus some administrative $$$'s. We know that the domains do generate some income from ads. This isn't a case of having registered McDonalds.com because that was your name and you can sell it to the company for 1 bazillion dollars. It's a speculation. I'm ok with some level of "profit" or reward for that but there is no brand associated with the domain already (*you* aren't marketing it), so what constitutes reasonable? I think that $500 is on the high end of what an undeveloped domain name is worth, but when I see $5,000, that just floors me. The key being that the domain is undeveloped. Marketing is the key to whether a domain is successful or not and speculative registration does nothing for that.

Re:How it's done - info from "the other side"

[dyingtolive]

The problem here is a matter of what is "fair". You say that there are loads of offers which are "too low by two-three orders of magnitude." What is a good offer for something like spoon.com? $10000? You paid about 15 bucks for it. I think the problem is the level of expectation that you should get paid two-three orders of magnitude more than what the domain is worth. The problem is that there is no value-add to what you do. It is quite literally just running up to something screaming "I was here first, pay me for this for that reason alone!" Most people resent paying more for a service that doesn't really get them anything. One of the reasons why SEO is such a scam. I might feed the domain trolls and give $100 for something like spoon.com if it was payday and I felt like being frivolous. At the same time you say that you have on it "a website filled with some adds in order to earn some money to finance the cost of domain renewal plus sometimes a few bucks extra." So you are already drawing even if not making a profit, so (in my mind) you can just enjoy your profitable little site, and I will look for a different name.

Oh, and as an afterthought though, props for having the balls to post this with your real UID.

Re:How it's done - info from "the other side"

[Etylowy]

If someone has bought a domain name to sell it with profit he will not consider any offers below $100-150 unless he has a bazilion domains registered by copy-pasting a whole english dictionary in mass domain registration form (and yes, there are folks who work that way). An average for a long domain name (6-7 letters+), not related directly to making money is $200-500. If it's business related the more money is to be made online the more will it cost.

Re:How it's done - info from "the other side"

[HanClinto]

What benefits are you providing to the customer?

As far as I can tell, you seem to be similar to a real estate housing "flipper", who shops around for low-priced houses, and immediately sells it for more, without providing the buyer any services other than a higher price.

In a word, you are not generating anything of value.

Is this illegal? No, by no means, and I don't think it should be. It's just a parasitical business model that is bad for the community overall. Real estate flipping is one of the (many) factors that contributed to artificially inflated the prices of houses during the last housing bubble.

Thankfully, it seems that this business model can only exist in the kind of market where the demand exceeds the supply, so opportunities for such parasitical non-productive business is limited.

I'm just glad that my current business lets me avoid having to deal with unwanted middle men like yourself.

Re:How it's done - info from "the other side"

[Arathrael]

If you want to buy the domain make an offer, but a fair one or you will be added to ignore list after the first message. We get loads of offers which are too low by two-three orders of magnitude and reading all off them is not really an option.

Riiiiight... if you really wanted 'fair offers', wouldn't it be more productive to give some actual indication of what you think a fair offer is? It's all well and good to say "it's based on this, this, and this" and "we get offers that are two-three orders of magnitude out", but that's not saying much really without any kind of starting point (are people offering you one instead of a 1000 dollars/euros/whatevers or what?). If you can't/won't give an actual example of a fair offer, or even an indication of the ranges a fair offer might fall into, how can you expect others to?

You gave examples of three domains, "ghdn.com, geen.com, geek.com", what would you regard as fair offers - ballpark figures - on those for example?

Having asked that, I reckon you're trying for more of a generic "There's loads of demand, honest! Offer me loads of money or you won't get it! Muahahahaha!" approach here, rather than an actually helpful and informative approach, so I'm not really expecting an answer.

Ask about multiple domain prices

[lalena]

First lookup the owner of that domain. Then, there are many sites out there that will tell you which domains that person owns. The way you handle this will be very different if he owns 10 vs 10 thousand domains.
Do a search with some of the "Buy this Premium Domain" sites to see if he has listed any of his sites to see how reasonable he is. Those prices are usually 1-2x's a real max bid starting point.
When you do ask for a price, ask him for the price of several of his domains at once. Act like you are not specifically interested in just of those domains and any would work for you. Maybe pretend to be another reseller interested in building your portfolio.
Some of the other advice above is also good. Don't be desparate, and the first email should be very short.

Re:recent

[GooberToo]

but they are just trying to make some money.

So are extortionists. Oh wait, that's what they are. The front grill of a car is the only thing good enough for these idiots.

I wish like hell someone would so something about these idiots and start charging normal prices for these idiots to park all these domains. People don't realize, in most cases, these idiots haven't even purchased the domain names. Rather, they buy them in bulk, don't pay, let them go back, and buy them again. Their tactics are in line with the mob. They are only one step above that of spammers. Scam and scum is an understatement.

Your customers won't care

[Opportunist]

They will not type in your company name in the URL bar and add .com. They will type your company name into google and click on the result. If they're recurring customers, they will bookmark your page.

URLs are no longer really important. I know people who have no idea what that funny bar on top of their browser is for that displays some funky random characters whenever they click on a link and a page loads.

Re:Your customers won't care

[Opportunist]

She's not alone, this is the norm rather than the exception.

I do a little adult education as a side job, often as a trainer for computer illiterates wanting to understand a bit more about their box. For them the simplest solution is often to have google or some other search site as their home page and typing whatever page they want into the google search bar. Trying to tell them that this is what the URL bar is for confuses them, and often results in them (rightfully) telling me that this way they often get to some other search page (=domain squatter) that confuses them. Google usually delivers what they are looking for.

When looking for something specific from a company it's also often faster to type what you're looking for in google instead of searching it at the page. If you want drivers for for your HP 1100 printer, type "hp 1100 drivers" into google rather than going to hp.com and trying to navigate there. It's simply faster. Even if you know what you're doing.

And certainly for someone who has no knowledge about computers.

If you want proof that people don't care for URLs, check out the plethora of reports about successful phishing attacks that direct an unsuspecting user with a scare mail to a page the URL of which has nothing to do at all with the bank they think they went to.

Re:Your customers won't care

[Zancarius]

When looking for something specific from a company it's also often faster to type what you're looking for in google instead of searching it at the page. If you want drivers for for your HP 1100 printer, type "hp 1100 drivers" into google rather than going to hp.com and trying to navigate there. It's simply faster. Even if you know what you're doing.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

Today would've been a great day to have mod points. *sigh*

This is exactly what I do. Say I read something on a specific site I enjoyed (maybe one of O'Reilly's various write-ups or CodeProject): I'm not going to go to the site and search. That's far too annoying, and most built-in site search forms lack the power of Google. It's easier to ask Google and then go to the results I want.

As a side note, I've always enjoyed your posts.

Re:Domain name not important?

[SoundGuyNoise]

Anyone who uses Google when they already know what website they want to go to deserves a boot to the head.

Domain parking != cybersquatting

[joseprio]

The title of this post is completely misleading. From Wikipedia cybersquatting is "registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". There's no trademark, not even a business... the submitter just saw a domain name he liked and that was already taken. That domain name could have been acquired by a multitude of reasons, some of which include just keeping it for future use.

When I've an idea for a personal project, and think of a good name for it, I check if it's available; if it is, I register it, and while I'm not using it, why not placing some domain parking page? It's gonna pay peanuts, but everything helps in crisis times. I want to clarify that I'm against mistyped domain or inadequate (popups, casinos, etc) advertising like most internet users.

When you see a domain name you like, just make an offer or ask for a price. Those prices are usually unreasonable, so just find an alternative. Also, always keep in mind that a good product is leaps and bounds better than a good name :)

Squatter

[mseeger]

Hi,

I had to solve such a problem once for a customer of us. A domain expired by accident and fell into the hands of a domainsquatter. The poor ex-owner had already advertisement material printed with his domain name on it. Damages would have ranged at about 10K$.

The problem: If a german company tries to purchase the domain, the prices tend to skyrocket (probably the same for US companies). So we created a fake russian student (not very rich) who wanted to use the domain for his private web site. He had a russian email address, had a small home page with his russian ISP etc. This way with a little negotiation, we managed to purchase the domain at a very reasonable price.

You have to be careful to become the owner of the domain. At first they tried to "lease" the domain to us by just setting the records. But it was completely in accordance with our virtual pesonality to display some paranoia and insist on a complete domain transfer.

Sincerely yours, Martin

I ended up filing a case

[Tiber]

It doesn't matter if it's bad faith or not, ICANN wants the domain to have a useful purpose. That's why people put the "search engines" up. However, the likelyhood of them showing up to defend their useful purpose is slim to none. The problem you have is that in order to file with ICANN for ownership of a domain, you need about $3000.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=icann+domain+dispute&l=1

Last time I had to do it, it took about a month. This was last year. We filled out the paperwork, then our "dispute agency" (ICANN itself delegates to an agency) contacted us for MORE paperwork, then the other guy didn't reply because he had used an "anonymous registrar" so we won by default.

Re:I ended up filing a case

[Tony Hoyle]

It doesn't cost $3000. It happened to a series of domains a company I worked for owned.. a squatter registered a bunch of similar sounding domains and started trying to get us to pay him money. Unluckily for him our CEO was an ex lawyer... ICANN awarded us every domain without question in about 3 weeks and as far as I know it didn't cost us a penny (in fact we started legal action against the squatter at the same time and it cost him a hell of a lot instead).

Suggestions

[sherriw]

First, decide on a price you are willing to pay and then vow not to go any higher. Don't look at the asking price, just decide what it's worth to you. Offer the squatter half that and if he haggles with you, be tough and then walk away if he wants higher than your top price. In fact, stop at about 3/4 of your top price then walk away for a few weeks. See if he calls you.

If you can't get it for the price you want, start looking into other variations on the domain. A domain is only as 'valuable' as the marketing you put behind it. So the domain itself won't make or break your business. You'd be better off investing that money into a good marketing campaign or branding/logo designer etc.

As for the actual transaction- don't buy it unless he is listing it through a legit registrar's after-market domain auctioning/selling system. Don't take the "send me the cash and I'll unlock it for transfer" line.

Protect yourself and get a lawyer to do the actual transaction.

Abuse

[gbjbaanb]

Cybersquatting is considered an abusive registration, and therefore subject to 'expedited administrative proceedings' with an ICANN representative. Its likely to cost you a fair bit to go through the dispute resolution, but if their site is obviously a 'for-sale' site, then you're pretty much guaranteed to win - para 4, section b refers almost entirely to cybersquatting.

It might be worth going this route if a) the scumbag has registered several domains you want (eg .com, .net) , and b) also wants loads of cash for them. The cost for the NAF panel is $1300 (nice work if you can get it :) )

I do think the dispute-resolution process is pretty poor for the most obvious forms of abuse, and should be opened up to more, quicker and cheaper forms of arbitration, with anything other than the most obvious cases requiring a higher panel,but ICANN is run as an international body, so I don't expect anything to happen, ever.

I disagree

[Overzeetop]

If you buy domain names on speculation, you're a cybersquatter - someone who reserves space for no reason other than to occupy the space a resell it. There is no legitimate reason to hoard domains, except to capitalize on the scarcity.

Now, since you appear to be a cybersquatter, I can see how you are a bit touchy and are looking to legitimize your business plan. That's fine. That's why houses are called "resales" and not "used." A "Domainer" (aside from sounding like something out of Waterworld) is just a nicer name for a cybersquatter - but you do the exact same thing.

Re:I disagree

[offrdbandit]

"There is no legitimate reason to hoard domains, except to capitalize on the scarcity." There is no legitimate reason to hoard diamonds, either, except to capitalize on the scarcity.

Re:I disagree

[Etylowy]

While I don't agree with your definition of cybersquatting (and therefore I don't consider myself a cybersquatter) I certainly see why you don't like what I do. Any business that makes you pay more for a services or goods that are served on first comes first served basis will make people angry. It's exactly the same with gold phone numers, except that there is no central control of the market (like the phone company).

Re:I disagree

[elodoth]

Well, diamonds aren't really scarce. People horde them to make it seem as if they are.

Re:I disagree

[Blakey Rat]

There is no legitimate reason to hoard domains, except to capitalize on the scarcity.

That's true of real estate, precious gems, and oil/natural gas as well. Why is domaining "wrong" and those other speculative businesses "right?"

If you're griping just because you didn't buy up domains when expensive ones were cheap-- well, I wasn't able to buy up land around Lake Washington when it was cheap either. Sometimes you just have to cope.

Re:I disagree

[JordanL]

There is effort, a physical scaricity and uniqueness in all of those things. In domains, the scarcity, the creation and the economic value are all artificial until it performs work, which it is not doing when it is being squatted.

In a very real sense, domain squatting is a very negative economic investment for everyone except the squatter. When you hoard a resource, that resource does not lose any of its value or utility, but with an artificial resource like a domain (which unlike oil or diamonds cannot be replaced by an identical substitute) and work not being performed by that resource is eternally lost. It can never be regained, and the resource is constantly losing productive value by being squatted. (Theoretically, this lost value is summed into the cost of the domain purchase from the squatter, though I would argue that almost always the productivity lost is orders of magnitude higher than the price paid to the squatter.)

In this view, cybersquatting is the practice of stealing productivity from the economy by creating a false absence of resources, then compounding that productivity into a payment which you collect as a return on your investment. For a social economics standpoint, cybersquatters are best described as theives.

Re:I disagree

[z80kid]

You don't offer anyone anything of value. You offer non-interference in an otherwise working system for a fee.

The only benefit you offer anyone is your absence.

That should be your eulogy. "All he had to offer us was his absence. We gather today to celebrate his only significant achievement."

Re:I disagree

[geekoid]

You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong.
Before responding, you might want to actually read the definitions.

Don't Encourage Them

[hyades1]

Offering these scumbags money just teaches them that they're on the right track. If you've got money to burn, why not throw a little at some of the many groups that are trying to outlaw this practice?

IP Address

[Comboman]

We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.

That's the real tricky part though. If you change your web host (and thus change IP address) all the work you've done to improve your Google ranking (not to mention links from other websites, bookmarks, etc) is gone and you'd have to start over again. Having a URL is still a necessity (though having a memorable URL is not as important as it once was).

Re:url?

[TheRaven64]

Use the Microsoft approach (see MikeRoweSoft.com). Make a large offer for the domain. Once they accept, withdraw the offer and forward the paperwork to ICANN. The agreement to sell can then be used as evidence in arbitration and the anti-cybersquatting rules mean that they can have the domain taken away from them.

Re:url?

[LKM]

I'm pretty sure you can get yahoo.com for almost nothing. Unfortunately, you also have to take the company attached to the domain name.

Not quite that simple

[an.echte.trilingue]

In meatspace, if a business sets up in a poor location, it affects their traffic because it is a PHYSICAL business. More importantly, no land = no business. On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers.

Of course, the name does enormous things for your placement in google. Just do a google search for "buy flowers": at least half the results have the search the search terms right in the domain name. This is not a coincidence. If the name describes what you do and is also your branded name, your success in google is almost guaranteed.

Having a domain name that describes your company is tremendously important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is google ranking. Further, with modern browsers, the address bar searches your history. If you have your name or your product in the domain, this helps people find you a second time. Google Chrome is even better: search and address bar are the same. While I despise these people who park pages, their price is usually worth it if you are a company and the name is good.

So, in the cyber-world, picking the name actually does make a big difference in the amount of traffic you get. Having "widgets.com" really is the equivalent of being off of the highway, while "example.com/widgets" is really miles down the road.

Also, giving up domain names means completely abdicating your surfing to search engines and people who know SEO. Not a good idea.

Re:Not quite that simple

[pla]

Also, giving up domain names means completely abdicating your surfing to search engines and people who know SEO. Not a good idea.

You make a lot of good points, but I have to wonder (respectfully, not mockingly) - Have you ever watched a non-geek "go" to a specific web site?

Fact #1 - They run Windows.
Fact #2 - They use the default browser (MSIE).
Fact #3 - They use the default homepage (MSN), or at best, have changed this to Google.

Now, when you stand there and tell such a person to, for example, "go to www.slashdot.org", they will, without fail, proceed to type "www.slashdot.org" into the MSN search box.

So while I agree with everything you said in principle (and expect it holds true for most advanced computer users), in practice, the GP had it right... The URL doesn't matter, because the vast majority of people don't even realize they can type things directly into the address bar - This really does boil down to the old Microsoft joke of "Where do we want you to go today?".

Re:Not quite that simple

[coaxial]

Of course, the name does enormous things for your placement in google. Just do a google search for "buy flowers": at least half the results have the search the search terms right in the domain name. This is not a coincidence. If the name describes what you do and is also your branded name, your success in google is almost guaranteed.

Keyword in domain is just one of literally hundreds of features that go into ranking function. Let's take your "buy flowers" search. The top hits are:

1. 1800flowers.com
2. buyflowersonline.com
3. ftd.com
4. buyflowers.net
5. honestflorist.com
6. beyondblossoms.com
7. flowershopdeals.com
8. buyflowers.org
9. proflowers.com
10. onlineflowers.com

Looking at the top-5 (which is the ones anyone really ever see), one has one keyword (the top hit), two have both, and two have neither. If we take the entire top-10, we still only have three with both keywords, six with one, and three with none. So what can we conclude about this? First, it seems pretty obvious that the "buy" keyword in the domain isn't very useful, otherwise we'd have a lot more "buy foo" hits, however the "flowers" keyword seems pretty good. So why is that? Well if you're selling flowers, it certainly seems natural to put "flowers" in the name of your company, and then use your company name for your domain.

Capitalist Pig-Dogs

[EgoWumpus]

Without getting all commie, people who have a lot of money, or opportunity, or options, always whine "It's nothing personal, just business." When you have the option to buy domains and sell them for 100x-1000x the price, why wouldn't you? Legally, of course, it's totally legit. Ethically, it's totally not. And I'll tell you why.

When you buy a piece of land, the law assumes that you are doing your bit to maintain and develop that land. In fact, most property law revolves around that idea of having to put work into it. You pay taxes on it, and you are generally expected to be doing something to maintain it's value. When a property falls into total - or dangerous - disrepair, they come to you with the fines. If your sidewalk is hazardous, you can get sued. This is all considered the price of ownership.

With domains, there is no such cost associated. In fact, all that buying up domains does is suck money from actual wealth-generating sectors of the economy. If I start a business called AwesomeWorldChangingWidgets, I can't get that domain if you're squatting on it without first paying you way more for that domain than you did. Now, if you were society at large, and that additional value was being spread across those people who help to bring value to the domain name itself (such as the internet routers, the municipalities that maintain fiber, ICANN, or any of the host of other sectors that make the Internet viable), that would be fair. But you're just taking the money and running: you're taking the money for someone else's work.

The only complaint anyone ever has with capitalism is the 'I got here first' problem. When you start out with resources others didn't have a fair opportunity at, and then exchange them for disproportionately large sums of money, you're playing into this. Yes, it makes your life easier, but you've only helped yourself - and at the expense of literally everyone else. That makes you unethical.

You say potato, I say ...

[OpenGLFan]

First of all what you are describing is not cybersquating (sp)
Ok...
The domain has been registered by a domainer - a domain trader that buys premium domains treating them as an investment.
That's the definition of a cybersquatter. Domainer is what cybersquatters call themselves -- it's like how mobsters call themselves "legitimate businessmen".
it's no trademark, not a domain typo - there is no bad faith.
That's just a subset of cybersquatter. I think we used to use the word "domain scalper" for these guys, but I'm not a real Internet anthropologist, just an old man.

Re:url?

[riyley]

sitting on a domain name unproductively with the intent to hope someone will come along and pay your ransom is not what most people consider legitimate business. while some URL's sell for high premiums because of the website behind it, or simply the value of the name itself (consider systemax's acquisitions of circuitcity and compusa URL, trademark, logo, etc.), this is not the case of many URL squatters who simply buy up every domain in sight, hoping one will make a payoff when a corporation takes interest.

If the owner hopes to invest in domain names, they should be expected to work the value of the name. but i disagree completely that a business hopeful with an actual use for a domain name should happily pay the extortion of a common domain thug.

Re:url?

[Sancho]

Strange, then, that speculating on land is considered reasonable.

especially since there's a lot more domain-name space than useful land.

It is not about the site

[an.echte.trilingue]

Yet some of the most successful sites don't do that at all. Google, Yahoo and Amazon are fantastically successful, and both Slashdot and Digg are doing pretty well for themselves.

Those are all sites that are successful because they have regular readers/frequently repeating customers. If you sell widgets, and people only buy widgets once a year, people will go to your site once a year. Nobody links to widgets on their blogs. A lot of companies sell things that you buy once or twice in your life. Unless you want to get billions of dollars of capital together to build a company that immediately dominates your sector (it is spurious to claim that you could repeat google or amazon on a startup budget today) good SEO is really the only path.

Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked).

This is my point. In the case of the OP, the trademarked name is already registered. This is a serious problem.

I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.

When was the last time you purchased something from a company on the fifth page of Google? A small company I worked for paid thousands of euros to an SEO get first page google ranking. Our business (which was already pretty good) doubled immediately. Our main competitor had a position called Vice President of Search Engine Optimization, that is how important this is in a sector that has real, physical products (cheap consumer goods don't count).

Re:It is not about the site

[Pollardito]

Most of the sites that I visit that have descriptive names are using names that are descriptive of what company runs them rather than what they do (and that company name was already known/trademarked).

This is my point. In the case of the OP, the trademarked name is already registered. This is a serious problem.

Actually in the case of the OP they don't even have a company. They have a plan for a company and an idea for a name and he says "we don't own a trademark on this name". If this guy wants too much money, than it seems like the perfect opportunity to think of another name. Technically we don't even know if the name that he wants is descriptive of the business, we're taking it on faith that he's not clammoring for some crazy made-up name.

I'm sure it helps you a little in search results, but it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.

When was the last time you purchased something from a company on the fifth page of Google? A small company I worked for paid thousands of euros to an SEO get first page google ranking. Our business (which was already pretty good) doubled immediately. Our main competitor had a position called Vice President of Search Engine Optimization, that is how important this is in a sector that has real, physical products (cheap consumer goods don't count).

I didn't mean that search position wasn't a big deal, I meant that you can get good search position by other means than your domain name.

What the OP needs to do is not marry himself to the name he's picked. Make the guy an offer that seems reasonable, deal with him respectfully, and if the reasonable offer is not accepted than he needs to find some way to fight it or else find another name

Oh, bullshit. A scalper is a low-life mugger.

[Petersko]

"blah...blah...blah...SCALPER GOOD!...blag...blah...blah"

A ticket scalper is nothing more than another form of mugger. They don't add value by helping people who are willing to pay the higher price, they subtract value by screwing over people who just want to pay face value. If they stood at the ticket window and stole cash from the people waiting to buy tickets the same end state would be reached.

Being half an hour too late to buy tickets to a popular concert is annoying. Finding a bunch of tickets being sold online by these jackasses ten minutes after that is more annoying.

Re:url?

[RobDude]

Yes it is.

It's the same idea behind buying an undervalued stock, doing nothing with the stock (except owning it) and selling it later.

It's the same idea behind buying a house that you feel is undervalued, renting it out/doing nothing, until the price goes up, and selling it later.

It's the same idea behind buying lots of gold because you feel it will be worth more in the years to come.

Buy low, sell high.

 

Sesame Street's gonna come and kick your ass

[Tetsujin]

This, please God, this.

sentence

Re:Sesame Street's gonna come and kick your ass

[alexo]

This, please God, this.

sentence

Word!

Analogies are the work of the Sodomites

[Tetsujin]

Also analogies are evil

Nooooo! Not my precious car analogies!

Re:url?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Unlike the above, squatters also clog up my search results, and pretend to be some sort of resource in their own right, feigning relevance to whatever search I did. That's more difficult to make an analogy, but I'll try...

It's like buying thousands of houses that you guess a few might be undervalued, putting a sign outside that says "Bed & Breakfast" or "Ye Olde Antique Shop", and when people come in looking for something entirely different, you either refer them to someone down the block who paid you for it, or you try to sell them the house.

It is generally quite dishonest.

Now, there may indeed be some cybersquatter rule that I can use to hurt them, but either way, I absolutely refuse to support their business model. If it's some kid who bought a personal domain and isn't doing much with it, fine -- but if it's yet another "What you need, when you need it" bullshit site, they can rot.

artist and fans get ripped off

[SethJohnson]

The existance of scalpers shows that the ticket office sells the tickets at far below market value.

Ticketmaster is guilty of this. Bruce Springstein did a series of concerts and wanted his regular street-level fans to be able to attend. Ticketmaster and Bruce's management agreed upon a range of ticket prices.

Ticketmaster operates a few subsidiary companies that also sell tickets. These companies bought the Springstein tickets at face value and turned around and sold them with a scalper's mark-up. The common folk were then priced out of the Bruce Springstein concerts and the Boss didn't see any of that premium pricing in the form of additional revenue.

in meatspace, the law wants land to be used!

[unclepedro]

Domains aren't land. There are some analogous aspects, but it's not the same thing, so we shouldn't expect to treat them exactly the same way as real property.

But as long as we're doing it, lets stretch the analogy a little bit. The law (IANAL) protects the property owners rights, but the law is also vested in seeing that land is actually *used*. This is why there are "adverse possession" laws. Also known as "squatters rights". In essence, the domain resellers are the property "owners" and people who want to use that land are the "squatters". Squatters (people who want unused land) in the real world actually have rights, unlike in cyberspace.

Squatters rights typically work like this: if you can squat on a persons land for a certain amount of time (say, 7 years) without them kicking you off it, YOU OWN THE LAND, because you were actually using it. Part of this law means that owners actually need to "regularly" walk their property to make sure that it's secure, etc., that nobody is squatting on it. And if you can use and occupy the land, and the other owner wasn't using it, you get to keep it and they lose.

The point here is that good use of limited resources (such as domains and land) is of value to society and thus to the law.

But adverse possession law doesn't work in cyberspace, for at least two reasons. First, the domain "property" owner can "walk" his property 3 billion times a second, even if he's not actually using it, because it doesn't occupy any physical space. Instead, its "size" is more a function of how useful it is within cyberspace. "buy.com" is the Louisiana Purchase compared to "xvlskdjf234235.org", which is like the one-room "garden" apartment you rent. So this unfairly supports domain resellers because they can be everywhere at once.

Secondly, there's no (legal) way to adversely possess a domain. Even if the reseller isn't using the domain to serve ads, you can't go and squat on it (to prove that you'll use it even though the owner isn't), because you'd have to hack his gibsons to do it.

Even overlooking the impossibility of adversely possessing a domain from a reseller, the issue is complicated by the fact that it's difficult to determine what legitimate use *is* in cyberspace. For example, just because there's no website doesn't mean it's not serving email. But what about ad sites or search portals? Is that a legitimate use? In the real world, you might buy property to put up a billboard, or more likely, you lease space from an owner to put up a billboard. (The owner uses the land, and you pay the owner for the right to place an advertisement there. Like *normal* Internet advertising.)

But a great domain doing nothing but serving ads might be analogous to buying Nebraska in order to paint the whole thing as a billboard for transcontinental flights. The owner of Nebraska probably makes money off it, and in some sense is "using it," but not really in the way that we understand land is meant to be used, and not in the way that is most obvious or suitable for the land in question.

So what does all this mean? Speculation can be appropriate, but it only works if it is practically limited by how long you expect to sit on the property, and by how much property you can speculate on. Instead, all domains cost basically the same no matter how good they are -- this is completely unlike real property where the initial and continuing costs (such as taxes, insurance, etc.) to the owner are based on some preexisting market cost. We also need to be able to define what it means to actually use property in cyberspace if we want to design a system that supports good use of cyberproperty.

Unfortunately, as things stand, we treat domain resellers as property owners, with all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages. They have all of the leverage, so the system naturally breaks.

Barter

[Demonantis]

The cybersquatter doesn't want the domain. He wants your money. Contact him and ask how much the site is going to cost. Don't be surprised if it is ridiculous then send an email back telling him your not interested at anything close to that price. I wouldn't be surprised if that price decreases rapidly to something quite more realistic. The guy is looking to make money and as long as its above cost he would be willing to sell. I don't get why people don't barter here as much as they do in Europe. Its a good skill to have.

Re:url?

[el americano]

Not again! It seems like this is a popular answer lately to tell people to not ask Slashdot, as if Ask Slashdot feedback isn't useful. Why read this section then? Personally I would value intelligent advice over a lawyer's advice if it wasn't intelligent. Neither source is flawless - no, a law degree does not mean you always know what to do. In fact, in this case, it's not primarily a legal question, but a question of business strategy. Will you now tell him to get off Slashdot and hire a business consultant??

It almost goes without saying that you can always pay a professional to get answers to your questions. Hearing the experiences of others for free is still a great value - and clever and unorthodox tactics from from a group like Slashdot is priceless.

I've bought one for a client

[grahamsz]

This is a perfect example of a situation where the first person to throw out a number loses.

In our cases the client had their .co.uk and needed their com too. This was back in 96 so even though they were a publicly-traded company with trademarks in multiple countries it wasn't clear that it could be enforced. The board of directors got together and established something like a $15k budget to get the name back.

I emailed the guy and he threw out $350. I literally ran to the bank and did an international wire transfer from my personal funds.

Worked out well for us, but what a fucking idiot :)