Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Filed Over Domain Name Registered 16 Years Before Plaintiff's Use

Posted by samzenpus on from the give-it-a-name dept.

HughPickens.com writes: Cybersquatting is registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit to those businesses. Now Andrew Allmann writes at Domain Name Wire that New York company Office Space Solutions, Inc. has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against Jason Kneen over the domain name WorkBetter.com that Kneen registered in 1999 although Office Space Solutions didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. "Workbetter.com is virtually identical to, and/or confusingly similar to the WORK BETTER Service Mark, which was distinctive at the time that the Defendant renewed and/or updated the registration of workbetter.com," says the lawsuit. But according to an Office Space Solutions' filing with the USPTO, it didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. Office Space Solutions is making the argument that the domain name was renewed in bad faith. According to Kneen, Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him and after it failed to acquire the domain name, is now trying to take it via a lawsuit.

122 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Some notes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. You don't need to make commercial use to have the right of a domain
    2. Use of the domain is anything that links to the domain (even if not in "public" use)

    Frivoulus case by the look of it. Service Mark owners should have the case dismissed with prejudice.

    1. Re:Some notes... by 400_guru · · Score: 1

      Clearly not the first if this type of harassment. Check out Chip Rosenthal's nightmare. He registered unicom.com the first day registrations were available and used it as his company web site. Years later a very annoying man started a company named Unicom systems and then spent thousands trying to get the name from Mr Rosenthal. Eventually the courts finally settled it in Mr Rosenthal's favor. http://rightwingnews.com/speci...

      --
      There are two rules to success in life: 1) Don't tell everyone all that you know.
  2. Morons ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I sincerely hope the court basically tosses this and says "you can't cybersquat if you do it 15 years before the whiny plaintiff".

    Stupid lawyers.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Morons ... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hope the court punishes Office Space Solutions for trying to abuse the legal system.
      Merely tossing it will not prohibit them from trying again.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Morons ... by Anon-Admin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would guess that the intent is not to make it to court.

      The intent is probably to run lots of discovery and waist time tell the guy runs out of money and eventually agrees to settle by giving them the domain.

      This is the kind of thing I would love to see the EFF grab and do pro-bona.

    3. Re:Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the lawyers get paid regardless, I would hardly call them stupid. The plaintiff, now HE'S stupid, and he's taking bad advice from greedy lawyers.

    4. Re:Morons ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any lawsuit that uses "and/or" should be immediately tossed and the lawyers fined for being shit at law. Make a specific argument, don't shotgun every possible infringement on the books. If you do, it's obvious you hope the defendant will simply cave in and not challenge you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Morons ... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just that.

      "Work Better" is arguably a combination of common words, it is not a name. If some glass window factory had happened to have registered "windows.com" before Microsoft did, MS would've had a really hard time claiming it's cybersquatting. Especially if said window factory would use it themselves and not offer the site for sale. Cybersquatting is usually defined as registering a domain with someone else's trademark as name, or the name of a celebrity or so, without the intention to seriously use it yourself and then trying to sell the domain to that person or company.

      This is not someone registering say cocacola.com or pepsi.com, or even microsoft.com to stay with the previous example. That are clearly brand names and were at the time the Internet started well established names. It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.

    6. Re:Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tossing it will indeed prohibit them from trying again if the case is dismissed with prejudice. They could try the same stunt with a different service mark and a different defendant, but at that point any defense attorney worth his or her retainer is going to bring up the previously-dismissed suit as proof of acting in bad faith.

    7. Re:Morons ... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If he has any brains, simply send every time there is "discovery" the same sheet of paper proving he has had it for 15 years.

      You can tell the plaintiffs lawyers to go fuck them selves over and over and over again.

      I have actually used the words "go fuck yourself" in response to a lawyers letter.

      Lawyers hate being called out as the spineless slime they are.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Morons ... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      So instead of one case in the court system you want 5 or 6 separate cases clogging up the court system? Not to mention these are civil cases where the burden of proof is lower, there will be times when the argument to any one point is unconvincing but the sum of the arguments is.

    9. Re:Morons ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.

      This happened to a man in the 1990s, Mr. Nissan.

      http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traditionally one would cite Arkell v. Pressdram, but the direct approach works too. There's a good chance the lawyers in question know their clients are full of shit anyway - but that won't stop them accepting a pile of money to send a threatening letter or two.

    11. Re:Morons ... by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't stupid if their intention is to effectively use the onerous cost of defending the lawsuit to strong-arm the defendant into doing what they want.

    12. Re:Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given their name, I highly suspect that Milton will burn their building down.

    13. Re:Morons ... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    14. Re:Morons ... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2

      So instead of one case in the court system you want 5 or 6 separate cases clogging up the court system?

      Exactly. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (d) (2):
      (2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.

      We want/i> to consolidate actions as much as possible.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    15. Re:Morons ... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      also happened to a Michael Rowe.

      Silly kid settled for an XBox in exchange for the domain...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    16. Re:Morons ... by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.

      Not sure when the last time I saw barratry successfully claimed, but a counter claim for damages and legal fees based on the case being frivolous, yes, that is quite possible. I feel it is clear the plaintiff is pursuing this case, knowing it lacks legal standing, to coerce the domain holder into transferring it since they failed to acquire it through negotiation. The case shouldn't even reach the discovery phase; it should probably die from the first or second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (I'll say two since the judge will often reject aspects in the first on procedural grounds, but say why [like "motion didn't identify ..."], so the motion can be redrafted to meet the judge's requirements).

    17. Re:Morons ... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Should have given him a slice of birthday cake...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    18. Re:Morons ... by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 2

      The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.

      Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.

    19. Re:Morons ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When dealing with barratry the best bet is to avoid the courts and go straight for the curb stomp.

      Shysters defend their own. I think lawyers should be barred from holding public office.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:Morons ... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I was wondering why this falls under US jurisdiction but I answered my own question when I looked up wiki ".com". The US has jurisdiction over that TLD.

      I hope they toss this case too.

    21. Re:Morons ... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      You might want to tighten that wording so as not to prohibit lawyers becoming judges, because having non-lawyers as judges is not going to improve things.

    22. Re:Morons ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Former shysters can hold any public office they want. All they have to do is give up their license to practice law forever.

      Otherwise they will continue to build a system designed primarily to enrich fucking lawyers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:Morons ... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that they could incur legal bills to other people by knowingly using an invalid argument? In what way would that be a good outcome unless you are a lawyer? Have you ever heard of the term "chilling effect"? "Hey there, domain owner, you can either sell us your domainname for $1 or we'll start a frivolous lawsuit using this ridiculous and knowingly invalid claim which will cost you atleast $2,000 to defend against".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  3. even if you win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trouble with lawsuits is that even if you win, you still lose.

    1. Re:even if you win... by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only winners are the lawyers.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:even if you win... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  4. Looks like a case of poor research by Felinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trademark holder did a poor job researching his trademark and finds prior use in a domain name now attempts to abuse anti cyber squatting laws to grab domain.
    This is one of those areas of tech law that will need to be ironed out in the future perhaps adding a domain name check to the TM check when registering a trademark.
    I hope the law going forward dose not favor the trademark holder over prior use owner.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just prior use of a domain name, but prior use of the trademark:

      http://jdevadf.oracle.com/work...
      https://www.citrix.com/go/work...
      http://www.workbetterindia.com...

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, here's the problem with that:

      Trade Marks and Service Marks are only meaningful in the area of business. It is not exclusive across all possible kinds of business. That's not how they work.

      You can't simply look up a domain name and check it against trademarks and decide who owns it. You and I can Trademark the same thing, and as long as you're making concrete and I'm making balloon animals, we can both keep it, because we're doing different things which won't reasonably be confused.

      So, unless the original registrant is in the same kind of business as the assholes^Wplaintiff in this case, it simply doesn't matter.

      I'm of the opinion the people suing don't have a leg to stand on. This guy had registered this domain a long time ago, and renewed it before this Service Mark was applied for.

      Which means unless they're in the same area of business and the Service Mark/Trade Mark then trumps prior ownership ... the assholes^Wplaintiff hasn't for a leg to stand on.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by Holi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmm, Kinda like how Apple Music and Apple Computers never had to worry about a trademark battle? Industry lines are not always so defined.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, that was why Apple Corps wanted Apple Computers to stay the hell out of the music industry.

      When one entity starts to bleed into what another does, then it gets much more into lawyers and all sorts of stuff.

      You'll notice that the resolution of this was Apple Computers bought Apple Corps and then licensed back the trademark.

      Most entities don't have the luxury of splashing out $500 million to fix that kind of situation.

      But my concrete and balloon animals example still holds.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a situation where I registered a 4 letter domain name back in 1997 (no TM was registered at the time for this which was amazing). Then a company decided to rebrand themselves and trademark the same 4 letters in 2006. Oh and for added measure a month before they registered the TM they registered a domain using an alternate top level and I believe used it on their application. So they "probably" knew the .com domain was already registered because as we all know everyone looks for .com first. Then in 2008 they sent me an email telling me that they noticed I had the domain name and wanted to discuss the matter rather than file an intellectual property notice. I cordially told them I had no interest in giving up the domain.

      Flash forward now 7 years. I haven't heard a word from them. I think my case would be much better than this one if they came after me.

      Yes anonymous coward cause I'm not poking the bear.

    6. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      That's it! I'm registering www.concreteballoonanimals.com right now.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by snsh · · Score: 1

      That industry line was pretty clearly crossed when Apple (Computers) got into the iTunes business.

    8. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Trademark holder did a poor job researching his trademark and finds prior use in a domain name now attempts to abuse anti cyber squatting laws to grab domain.

      I would argue that they did. Unfortunately the current law and case law give favor to a trademark holder, in this case Office Space Solutions, to get control of a domain name. They saw a domain name\trademark that wasn't being used filed the trademark, used it a bit, offered to buy it, and then went after the domain name using the tools created to break cybersquatters. It's a pretty standard method now a days to get control of a little used domain even if the owner doesn't want to sell at a reasonable* price.

      I don't think it's right, but that's how the process works now a days.

      *This is very subjective by the way. Reasonable for one isn't necessarily reasonable for another.

    9. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Liar:
      Whois Server Version 2.0

      Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
      with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/
      for detailed information.

      No match for "CONCRETEBALLOONANIMALS.COM".
      >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:46:12 GMT <<<

    10. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Amateurs:

      For more information on Whois status codes, please visit
      https://www.icann.org/resource....
      Domain Name: concreteballoonanimals.com
      Registry Domain ID: 1943371105_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
      Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
      Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com/
      Update Date: 2015-06-30T16:36:25Z
      Creation Date: 2015-06-30T16:36:25Z
      Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-06-30T16:36:25Z
      Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
      Registrar IANA ID: 146
      Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
      Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
      Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clien...
      Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clien...
      Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clien...
      Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clien...
      Registry Registrant ID:
      Registrant Name: Michael Chaney
      Registrant Organization:
      Registrant Street: 2214 Henpeck Ln
      Registrant City: Franklin
      Registrant State/Province: Tennessee
      Registrant Postal Code: 37064
      Registrant Country: United States
      Registrant Phone: +1.6153611244
      Registrant Phone Ext:
      Registrant Fax:
      Registrant Fax Ext:
      Registrant Email: domains@michaelchaney.com
      Registry Admin ID:
      Admin Name: Michael Chaney
      Admin Organization:
      Admin Street: 2214 Henpeck Ln
      Admin City: Franklin
      Admin State/Province: Tennessee
      Admin Postal Code: 37064
      Admin Country: United States
      Admin Phone: +1.6153611244
      Admin Phone Ext:
      Admin Fax:
      Admin Fax Ext:
      Admin Email: domains@michaelchaney.com
      Registry Tech ID:
      Tech Name: Michael Chaney
      Tech Organization:
      Tech Street: 2214 Henpeck Ln
      Tech City: Franklin
      Tech State/Province: Tennessee
      Tech Postal Code: 37064
      Tech Country: United States
      Tech Phone: +1.6153611244
      Tech Phone Ext:
      Tech Fax:
      Tech Fax Ext:
      Tech Email: domains@michaelchaney.com
      Name Server: NS17.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
      Name Server: NS18.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
      DNSSEC: unsigned

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    11. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by omnichad · · Score: 1

      16:36:25Z

      So you bought it? Have fun with it. It's your money.

    12. Re:Looks like a case of poor research by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I don't do anything except domain registrations and ssl certs with them.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
  5. can he countersue? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    can't the guy claim Office Space Solutions ripped him off?

    i mean, i don't actually believe that, "Work Better" is not a difficult slogan to formulate

    but when dealing with this kind of abusive litigation, i think it's fair to reply to this kind of crap with the same crap

    "your honor, Office Space Solutions must have found my website and decided to steal my intellectual property" or some such nonsense

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:can he countersue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. The best possible outcome is for Office Space Solutions to lose the right to the "Work Better" service mark.

  6. Sounds very much like by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds very much like Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer, where Nissan Motors tried to claim a domain registered before the Nissan name was commonly used (they were still naming cars Datsun at the time). Basically Nissan Computer wins case after case but the motor copmpany keeps trying and in the latest move is trying for a federal trademark for the business of computers and accessories.

    1. Re:Sounds very much like by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds very much like Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer, where Nissan Motors tried to claim a domain registered before the Nissan name was commonly used (they were still naming cars Datsun at the time).

      It should also be noted how Nissan Motors tried (and almost succeeded) in bankrupting Uzi Nissan. That is the reason why I did not even consider a Nissan in 2007 when I was shopping for a new car. I even made it a point of letting the dealer know that when they approached me as the Nissan dealership is in the same facility with other makes.

      Note that I once had a turbo manual 280ZX with an independent rear suspension that I absolutely loved. There is no better way to alienate intelligent consumers than to tread on their morals, no matter how satisfied they may be with your company's products.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Sounds very much like by thejesses · · Score: 1

      Kind of, but he does have a large list of shitty domains for sale, including workbetter, workfaster, workharder, and just redirects them to a tumblr. He's a squatter, it just so happens he was there a long time ago in this case.

    3. Re:Sounds very much like by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Uzi Nissan

      Google Images fails to replicate the image that came to my mind with that name.

      Think Mad Max.

      I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough ... MOSSAD .. Cough

    4. Re:Sounds very much like by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nissan is owned by the French. Not getting a frog mobile is plenty of reason to avoid them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Sounds very much like by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough ... MOSSAD .. Cough

      Actually the weapon called the Uzi is named after Uzi Gal, who invented it. It is a common enough name.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Sounds very much like by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Nissan is owned by the French.

      I guess that explains why the Nissan dealership is shared with the Renault dealership. Do they use a common chassis, like Renault and Peugeot do?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:Sounds very much like by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I saw some Peugeot badged Z cars last time I was in Europe.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Sounds very much like by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Do they use a common chassis,"

      Yes.

  7. It is doing it the wrong way. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What the New York company should do is to create a foreign shell corporation. Then sell the "Work Better" franchise to its own wholly owned foreign subsidiary. Now that foreign investor has standing to sue the federal government for the "loss of potential profits". Best of all the suit will be arbitrated by a council of lawyers, one selected by its cronies in Washington, one by the foreign subsidiary and the third by mutual consent. The same panelists might work as lawyers for other trade disputes at the same time. The lawyers pleading before them could be sitting in other arbitration panels where these panelists are pleading as lawyers. It is all done in a chummy atmosphere with clinking of champagne glasses, silver cutlery on bone china dishes and with Chef Anatole doling out Migonette de poulet petit Duc and Neige aux perles des Alpes with Salade d'endive et de celeri

    You can't lose a case there if you tried. And it is not reviewable or appealable to any court in the USA including the Supreme Court.

    You think it is a parody from The Onion? It is what TPP does. Only foreign investors can sue the federal government seeking compensation for any change in the law or its implementation by any body (federal, state or local). They can demand compensation for not just actual losses, but for loss of hypothetical future profits their business plan assumed.

    Instead these dim wits are appealing to US patent and trade mark office as a domestic investor. Such pointy haired bosses bring shame to all MBAs.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is doing it the wrong way. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      TPP hasn't passed yet.

    2. Re: It is doing it the wrong way. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      It's a done deal. Both Obama and GOP are supporting it. Most Democrats too. But for Warren and may be Sanders there is no opposition. It is going to pass.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. I see a profitlist coming by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1
    1. Find an unused domain
    2. Set up a competing business
    3. Take your time.
    4. I mean, really. 15 years is OK.
    5. Sue the original domain owner
    6. ...
    7. Profit!
    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  9. GoodJob! by Psychotria · · Score: 2

    GoodJob.com
    WellDone.com
    GetFucked.com
    TastyAndDelicious.com
    DoneRight.com
    TheRightWay.com
    SoftestInTheSouth.com
    TheTasteOfTheSouth.com
    BackOff.com
    SleepWell.com
    GimmeTen.com
    PerfectlyCrisp.com
    SlowDown.com
    WeCare.com
    MadeToOrder.com
    FreshFromTheFarm.com
    FreshIsBest.com
    TuckMeInAtBedtime.com
    EnjoyTheFood.com
    HaveAGreatTime.com
    OneStepAtATime.com
    CrazyCats.com
    ThePenIsMighty.com (err... maybe that can be read incorrectly)
    SoftAndFluffy.com
    EasyOnTheEyes.com
    LitigateDontMitigate.com

    I guess that any common phrase can be "claimed". Weird.

    1. Re:GoodJob! by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Further, it seems that at phrase can be trademarked!(C)(R)(TM)(TLDR)

    2. Re:GoodJob! by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Some of these sound like adult oriented entertainment sites such as Freshfromthefarm.

      Make me an offer then...

    3. Re:GoodJob! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I shall register:

      Further, is seems that any phrase can be trademarked!(C)(R)(TM)(TLDR)

      And sue you for your typo squatting!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?

    1. Re:The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No. They didn't even start using the phrase or trademark it until 2015. And it's not cybersquatting if there's no target buyer. So renewals don't even factor into it.

    2. Re:The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?

      Basically, no, since the laws deal with the intent of possessing the domain, so unless intent demonstrably changed from when it was first registered, this is just an attempt to shove a wedge into where the plaintiff thinks there may be a crack.

      There are a few laws that can get involved, but the most important in the US is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

      I haven't read it, but it appears the act lays out some guidelines, and among some defenses are "Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services" which should apply here. The act also lists actions that would indicate bad faith by the domain holder, like "Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location" and "Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site", but those don't appear to apply here. The fact the domain was renewed is not relevant to this law.

      The other important "law" is by appealing to ICANN under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which unfortunately has historically been more fruitful to trademark owners when going after people legitimately using a domain that contains a trademarked name since it allows a person to complain that "a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights".

    3. Re:The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      And it's not cybersquatting if there's no target buyer.

      Right, it's "domain speculation" or whatever term those parasites want to use for their activities. You want to buy a domain name? Great. But instead of the $10 it would normally cost you, since I bought it 10 years ago and haven't used it since then I'm going to charge you $20,000. Now thank me for providing you with this service.

      Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him and after it failed to acquire the domain name

      It "tried to purchase"? What does that mean, they took their wallet out but a seagull swooped down and stole it? They were about to write the check when the pen exploded? They went to the Greek Bank ATM but couldn't withdraw anything? I think by "tried to purchase", what Kneen means is "I offered them an absurd price for a domain name and they thought I was an asshole for even asking for that much". Here's the list of other domains he owns, some of which redirect to his personal blog. Although tossmysalad.com does not redirect to his blog, I wonder what he's asking for that one.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by omnichad · · Score: 1

      He's providing a service- buying up generic phrases so that businesses are forced to actually use creativity and not use a boring name. Not a very profitable thing, since nobody should buy them.

    5. Re:The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      businesses are forced to actually use creativity and not use a boring name

      That's a lot to ask, my friend. It takes a lot less creativity to just sue someone I guess.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  11. Why is not itself a civil offense? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

    So if the plantiff can make "bad faith" claims about domain register renewal and seek to have the government impose sanctions why can't the defendant argue that the case itself is filed in bad faith seeking to separate the defendant from his righttful property? It's all about mens rea- or an intent to do evil , so isn't' using the court or police or prosecutor's office to induce people of good faith to achieve an evil result itself the much more serious crime?

    Suppose the defendant is a domain name speculator? Is this kind of speculationi illegal now, an act of bad faith?

    Suppose the defendant is a guy with a half baked dream involving his domain name, a dream which will never come true. Does he have to give up his dream because someone started a company and if so isn't this just more lawmaking to suit people with money?

    Why is the litigant under no obligation to check on the state of domain names at the time he or she forms the company? If the domain name is taken and the seller isn't selling or an agreed upon price can't be struck, nthen find another name.

    1. Re:Why is not itself a civil offense? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2

      It would be just as you say it should in a world of common sense. Bullying people with lawsuits and using the justice system to do your bidding should be punished harshly. Specifically, the people responsible for this should be punished, not the company (i.e. just slapping them with a fine or with court costs).

      However as it looks to me (disclaimer, I'm not from the USA), the US justice system is taking everything literally and specifically. For example, just this week someone was complaining that there is no specific law against online harrasment. Why should there be? Shouldn't there be a law against harrasment and have that blanket every possible medium?

      Honestly, to me as an outsider, all these lawsuits about copyright, privacy, antitrusts, piracy and so on that I see in the news every day sound like an argument with a teenager. Just a ton of energy expended "explaining" to him something that he clearly understands but still doesn't want to accept so he keeps saying stuff like "nuh-uh, I was crossing my fingers when I said that, it doesn't count".

      --
      ics
    2. Re:Why is not itself a civil offense? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      civil law isn't about intent, it's about findings of fact. Here's some:

      Guy innocently buys a domain in 1999. Probably forgets he's put an auto-renew on it. Probably forgets, right there in the middle of the dotcom bubble, that he's even registered that one among dozens of others.

      Company starts using a service mark THIS YEAR that bears a naming resemblance to the dotcom domain.
      Company attempts to acquire the domain, is rebuffed.
      Company gets pissy, goes right in with both barrels loaded with lawyers.

      Really, they're just trying it on after offering him what, fifty bucks for the domain which he probably rightfully told them to stick up their arses, I'd be the same if someone came up to me and offered me a pittance for a domain they clearly held great value in acquiring.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:Why is not itself a civil offense? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It's all about mens rea- or an intent to do evil , so isn't' using the court or police or prosecutor's office to induce people of good faith to achieve an evil result itself the much more serious crime?

      LOL ... OK, so obviously I'm no lawyer ...

      But isn't the defense against that simply that the plaintiff is a self-confessed, shamelessly self-entitled douchebag who was acting in good faith as a clueless idiot who believed his huge ego entitled him to the domain?

      Now, I'm not saying the plaintiff is, or is not, any of these things. Merely that you can step around mens rea by not so much an intent to do evil, as a legitimate belief that, as a self-entitled douchebag there was no specific malice.

      Because it's exactly the say way the Copyright assholes^Wclaimants who assert they own copyright of something via the DMCA they don't can simply say "oops, we thought we did".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  12. Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

    1. Re:Copyright Law by j-beda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

      I think that is not completely true. A simple exchange of letters and perhaps an explicit licence for a nominal sum ($1 for example) or a memorandum of agreement that the potential infringer will not enter into the domain that the trademark coveres would probably be sufficient to defend the trademark. And significantly less expensive.

      This type of behaviour is stupid if they are merely trying to defend their trademark.

    2. Re:Copyright Law by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.

      A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.

    3. Re:Copyright Law by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Suing someone who isn't infringing your trademark is not defending your trademark. It is harassing an innocent person.

    4. Re:Copyright Law by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But their lawyer saw an opportunity to waste their clients money and make some in the process.

    5. Re:Copyright Law by c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

      It seems to me that if someone else was using the same name for 16 years prior to them and they claim that it's confusingly similar, they're effectively arguing that their trademark is invalid. Either they had a trademark and spent 16 years not enforcing it, or they failed to notice/mention prior art when they applied for it.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:Copyright Law by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.

      A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.

      Like the legal agreement Apple Computer made with Apple Corp never to enter the music business in return for keeping the Apple Computer name?

      Apple decided to enter the music business, Apple Corp. sued, lost and had to pay £2m to the company that had infringed on their trademark, thanks to that agreement. In the face of an army of lawyers, not only do these agreements offer minimal protection, they can actually make your position weaker.

    7. Re:Copyright Law by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're oversimplifying the legal case as well as leaving out the series of legal battles preceding the one which you're speaking about and failing to note that the payment was for legal fees. The reason that Apple Corps lost is because in a previous court battle they had agreed to legal terms that allowed Apple Computer to have the right to any services that allowed music to be played or delivered, which is essentially what the iTunes music store does, as long as they weren't distributing pre-recorded music on physical media, which is what Apple Corps was in the business of doing.

      If the Apple Corps didn't want Apple Computer to even be able to sell music, they shouldn't have agreed to legal terms that would allow them to do so. Unfortunately they had a legal agreement with Apple that permitted Apple to do exactly that as long as they weren't distributing tapes, CDs, or other physical media. It's not really surprising that a record company failed to see the coming storm of digital music and was foolish enough to include language about physical media. Sucks to be them, but that was the agreement they made.

      Wikipedia has a decent overview of the various court cases between the two over the years.

    8. Re:Copyright Law by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

      Except the domain was registered BEFORE the trademark.

      That's the key point - if the domain was registered AFTER the trademark, then yes, trademark law is clear on that. But in this case, the trademark was created long after the domain was registered.

      So it's no longer a simple "defending a trademark" procedure, as otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property. Don't like a domain? File a trademark and if successful, sue to get the domain, doesn't matter who got it first or whatever.

      It's similar to the case where the guy got his YouTube URL taken away just because someone with money wanted it. Or Nissan.com - the original owner had the store way before the car company renamed themselves.

      Trademarks need to be defended, however, defense implies preventing people from diluting it. It doesn't cover the case where someone else already uses the name prior to your filing. (And there are many trademarks that are similar - as long as their trade areas don't overlap, that's fine.)

    9. Re:Copyright Law by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 2

      Barratry: "the persistent incitement of litigation".

    10. Re:Copyright Law by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      It's similar to the case where the guy got his YouTube URL taken away just because someone with money wanted it. Or Nissan.com - the original owner had the store way before the car company renamed themselves.

      Another example would be McDonald's restaurant(USA, Arches) suing MacDonald's family restaurant(UK). They lost, because there had been a MacDonald family restaurant(reincarnated on a regular basis, but always with 'MacDonald' in the name) there since before the USA was a country...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Copyright Law by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property.

      I generally agree with you in principle as to how trademark law ought to be interpreted.

      I think its an interesting question to ask though. Does a domain name constitute property. Its not as if its tangible. Its record in a database, perhaps more importantly its a record in someones elses's database. That is before you even start to address who really owns that database. Is the 'private' organization ICANN or is it the US Department of Commerce.

      In any case its hard for me to see how domain name can be rightly call property. Certainly this post belongs to Slashdot. I doubt anyone would get far asserting otherwise EULA or not. In the end its an electronic record that governs the behavior of an application (Slashdot's comment system) just like any DNS record does.

      Similarly if you town decided to rename the street you live on would have any legal recourse (other than ballot box).

      I can see how a digital record that you personally control, is rightly analogous to a 'paper or effect' in the fourth amendment sense. Once you hand it off to someone else though or it because a 'fact' in a public database I am not sure you can call it yours anymore and I am even less sure its 'property'

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Copyright Law by sjames · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, there was a lot more to it than that.

      But what Apple Corp s chose to protect remained un-infringed.

    13. Re:Copyright Law by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The one you are speaking about did not use the same "words" as a domain name 16 years before they got sued.
      Read the summary. They blocked the domain name explicitly to sell it later ... and tried to sell it to the company which is suing now. However they could not agree on the price.

      In Germany the suer likely would win ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Copyright Law by dmitrygr · · Score: 1

      why would the owner agree to that. his domain - he can do whatever he wants. he really was first to the name. if anyone should be handing out licenses to that name, he can. and if i were him i would not.

      --
      -------
      1. Enjoy your job
      2. Make lots of money
      3. Work within the law

      Choose any two.
    15. Re:Copyright Law by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      If someone decided to make a trademark today out of what had been your personal domain for years and they showed up, offered to promise not to sue you for a fee of $1 how would you feel about giving it to them?

      Don't get me wrong, $1 is nowhere near worth going to court over. But come on... do you want to pay me a dollar not to market something under the name j-beda?

    16. Re:Copyright Law by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's because trademark law is a mess. The domain holder has the right to the domain, but the trademark holder has the right to use the name in any form in a particular line of business. To avoid a bunch of unnecessary legal crap it's better for both parties to sign a simple document and be done with it.

    17. Re:Copyright Law by j-beda · · Score: 1

      If someone decided to make a trademark today out of what had been your personal domain for years and they showed up, offered to promise not to sue you for a fee of $1 how would you feel about giving it to them?

      Don't get me wrong, $1 is nowhere near worth going to court over. But come on... do you want to pay me a dollar not to market something under the name j-beda?

      You are right that I would probably feel insulted, but if I responded to their letter saying "we are not in the same business, there is no infringement, I don't need a license" that in itself would probably satisfy their need to defend their trademark. If their response was, "sorry, it looks like there is infringement, you really need a license" I might actually consult a lawyer.

      The offer could be more of a cross-liscencing deal with no money needing to change hands.

      Remember, this is under the assumption that there really is some actual need to defend the trademark. If some company actually spent money on a stamp and a polite request to make sure the "Juvenile Base for Egregious Dumb Asses" was not confused with "j-beda", I might be open to a disclaimer on my website.A rude demand with threats from random bed manufacturer who wants me to just turn it over without question, not so much.

    18. Re:Copyright Law by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Trademark infringement requires that the "infringing" company come into existence after the trademark was registered _and_ be in the same sector of industry.

      This is reverse domain squatting and WIPO tends to stomp on it.

    19. Re:Copyright Law by suutar · · Score: 1

      That's not at all what the summary says, as best I can tell. Are you referring to one of the linked articles? Because one of them says that the domain owner did not try to sell anything to anyone; the plaintiff made an unsolicited offer.

    20. Re:Copyright Law by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ah, then still the question is up: did the owner use the domain? Seems the summary was misleading, I had the impression the owner only had the domain to sell it later.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  13. Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.

    Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:

    1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.

    2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)

    Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to Kneen's web site, http://www.jasonified.com/doma..., workbetter.com is for sale. He currently has it redirecting to his primary domain name, www.jasonified.com. After looking at the list of domains he owns, including many that are Twitter related, he looks a lot like a cybersquatter.

    2. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by phorm · · Score: 1

      A cybersquatter is generally somebody who knowingly buys a domain reflecting somebody else's business. In this case - unless he also owns a time machine - he couldn't have done so (the Trademark did not exist for this business when the domain was registered).

      A company I used to work at had a *lot* of high-value TLD's that they did use in their primary LOB. However, these domains were often bought from people who picked them up long ago because it was a useful name, and they were generic names (for example, a name like "razors.com" or "shaving.com" rather than corporate "gillette.com", etc).

      I don't really see the big deal with this. He picked up a piece of online presence which happens to be a valuable piece of virtual real-estate, and has been paying the fees for re-registration for FIFTEEN YEARS.

      Now it's valuable to somebody... and the first thing they try to do is illegally transfer the property to their name (but oh, oops it was a "mistake"). If it were physical property then Office Space Solutions would have had somebody going to jail for this...

    3. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. Read the guy's blog, he doesn't know how to clone a hard drive and blames "Windows", he pats himself on the back for using Outlook to transfer emails between Exchange servers (instead of free ExMerge) and spews crazy Apple rumors.

      If I was on the jury, I'd side with the plaintiff.

    4. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about this not being a big deal. At this point it's just between two parties who both want to make money off a domain.

      I don't know a whole lot about the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", but according to Wikipedia:

      In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:

      1 Registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name;
      2 Whether the domain name contains the registrant’s legal or common name;
      3 Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services;
      4 Registrant’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible by the domain name;
      5 Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark;
      6 Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site;
      7 Registrant’s providing misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name;
      8 Registrant’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others; and
      9 Extent to which the mark in the domain is distinctive or famous.[11]

      Point by point...

      1) Kneen has no relevant trademark as far as I know
      2) The domain does not relate to his name
      3) Kneen has not apparently used the domain commercially
      4) The domain is not in use currently other than a redirect to his primary web site
      5) I see no reason to think Kneen was trying to divert customers
      6) Kneen may not have contacted the plaintiff, but he openly lists the site for sale on his own page. He has not, by all appearances, used the domain for a legitimate site. However, Office Space Solutions made some kind of offer to Kneen that he didn't like, giving weight to the argument that Kneen is trying to sell the domain at a profit.
      7) Kneen has not tried to hide his identity
      8) Kneen owns confusing domains related to Twitter and FTPAnywhere and possibly with some others I'm not familiar with.
      9) The domain name is somewhat distinctive in my estimation, but not famous.

      These items are not comprehensive and the courts are obviously free to consider whatever criteria they wish. Knowing how some similar cases have gone in the past, in my layman's opinion, I expect he will loose if this goes to court, but it probably wont get that far. Regardless of any potential fraudulent action by Office Space Solutions, the two parties will almost assuredly settle out of court for an undisclosed sum of money and the Internet will march on.

    5. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization."

      That's the basis for *one* of his countersuits.

      I've been involved in similar situations, where a corporation tried to transfer a domain name, got caught, made an offer to purchase, and simultaneously sued for infringement. In one case the complainant settled for a fair purchase price with the previous owner, my service client at the time, and they got enough time to make a transition. In the other, my client actually had the suit dismissed, then auctioned the domain name off and never told me who bought it.

      In both instances the court was really intrigued by the attempt to hijack the domain name. Even in the 90s judges were understanding this 'Internet thing' was real, and had tangible value.

      I hope this guy sues them for the attempted theft, though a criminal case would be more appropriate.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Some people consider that 'farsighted''.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up If I could. :)

    8. Re: Sounds Like A Scumbag Company by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Alan Hunter, MTV VJ, that registered mtv.com and fit into a bit of a fight over it with the network?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  14. So.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    ....apparently you can be penalized for creating a name before someone else thinks of it.

    And, you can have your property threatened by anyone who happens to want your domain name, regardless of the facts.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. Let's look at the situation again here by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    OSS tries to buy the domain that a guy first registered fifteen years ago, fails.
    OSS tries to sue the domain owner over a trademark it didn't start using until THIS YEAR.

    The fuck? OSS are trying it on. This shit should be tossed with prejudice and costs awarded to the respondent.

    (I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice).

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  16. A Judge with any sense should see though this. by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1
    "... Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him..."

    If Mr Kneen can prove this in court then Office Space Solutions' case won't last long. It proves they are the ones guilty of bad faith.

    Furthermore, if the claim that Office Space Solutions tried to perform an unauthorized transfer of the domain is true and can be proven in court, then surely that would be criminal fraud.

    It sounds as if Office Space Solutions are hoping that Mr Kneen would see the lawsuit filing and just hand over the domain instead of fighting this. I hope that he doesn't, and I hope this is something that the EFF would care to involve themselves with.

  17. Not a squatter? by james_gnz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a link to the list of over 100 domain names Jason Kneen has for sale on his website: Domains.

    The one's I've checked are either inactive or pretty generic (some camera-related links at digitalfreak.co.uk, "parked by GoDaddy" at edit-anywhere.com, and a default WordPress page at foryourpocket.com), except workbetter.com, which redirects to his website. Coincidence?

  18. Monster by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    I, for one, shall never buy a Monster Cable product. And I think I am not the only one.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Monster by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, shall never buy a Monster Cable product. And I think I am not the only one.

      Yeah, but for me it's their poor value:price ratio, not their abhorrent business practices.

      --

      Enigma

  19. Re:Better Late than never by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    "It's never too late to procrastinate." - Unknown

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  20. The guy is a squatter by PetiePooo · · Score: 2

    If the current owner was actually using the name for his business, I'd agree with the majority of commenters in this thread. Say he had a consulting firm named "WorkBetter, Inc." and had been using it for years with business cards, receipts, and tax records to show for it. That does not appear to be the case here, as he has a list of domains that he's trying to sell. 117 of them by my count, including several with active trademarks and a few Daft Punk-ish variants of work-something.

    This is textbook cybersquatting. He bought a whole bunch on speculation hoping to get rich quick, and now wants to cash in his lottery ticket. It's a little too late for him to claim he has a legitimate business use for it.

    I know that's not the prevailing opinion here, but he's been squatting on the domain for years without using it. I think the company suing him has a legitimate case. It doesn't and shouldn't matter that he held the domain before the plaintiff registered their trademark; his continued holding of it is squatting.

    1. Re:The guy is a squatter by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is textbook cybersquatting. He bought a whole bunch on speculation hoping to get rich quick, and now wants to cash in his lottery ticket. It's a little too late for him to claim he has a legitimate business use for it.

      Thing is he bought generic domain names, and has a right to own them. He's had it for 15 years. They're claiming that's just fine, and that he could sell it to them, but didn't; then, when it expired and he renewed, they claimed he doesn't have the right to RETAIN his property (we treat domains as property, because we consider the purchase of lease as ownership, not licensing: YOU CAN SELL YOUR DOMAINS TO OTHER PEOPLE).

      In effect, if you own a domain, and another company thinks they have a claim to it that does not predate your ownership, all they have to do is wait for renewal. When it comes time for your domain to expire, renewing it is treated as buying it new. If you owned Windows.com 5 years before Microsoft made Windows, Microsoft couldn't do shit; if you renewed it when it expired 8 years later, Microsoft could treat you exactly like you just registered Windows.com that day, claiming you maliciously started infringing on their trademark, even if you weren't infringing before due to prior ownership. Renewal is new ownership.

      It's a bullshit approach. The plaintiff is suing because they've come up with a name, found someone else owns the name, and don't want to buy the property.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:The guy is a squatter by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      So defining cybersquatting as owning domain names that you don't use is ok?

      What about domains you have sites up for, though no one visits them? Or domains that you even maintain sites for, but no one visits?

      How about very few visits, of family and friends?

      You don't want to go down that road, or contested domain names will go to the 'best use', inevitably being whoever or whatever can get the most 'value'. Or has some claim that is unenforceable otherwise. Or tells a better story.

      Nope.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  21. 16 years before what? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Slashdot, stop jamming your graphics over the subject line assholes.

    1. Re:16 years before what? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate CSS complexity. It took more than 10 years of tireless work from the part of Microsoft to deliver a browser blessed with a decent rendering.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  22. Happened to me! by gizmo2199 · · Score: 1

    I just came out with a GoT RPG board game having to do with the many face god. I wanted to promoted using the domain facebook.com, but some guy named Zuckerberg totally cybersquatted the name.

    --
    This Sig does not Exist.
  23. Re:He will lose the domain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Once they are appointed, they rarely care who backed their ascension to the bench. Unless the judge is a Democrat, they never forget.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  24. Re:He will lose the domain... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It depends on the corporation. The Democrats are after all the party of Hollywood and Wall Street.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  25. Re:The guy is a squatter - NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know a guy who owned tobacco.com. A University of Toronto scumbag professor tried to register a US trademark on Tobacco.com, actually he did register a trademark image with tobacco.com in the image. He then started a trademark dispute with ICCAN claiming his trademark was being infringed on and he wanted ownership of the domain under the UDRP.

    When you use a name, like tobacco.com online, you start generating your own common law trademark rights yourself. The guy who owned the name opted for three-judge panel binding arbitration. Cost $900+ up front. The domain theif lost in arbitration. The judges sided with the domain owner. The 900+ dollars was refunded since in cases like this loser pays.

    I don't see much difference between what happened here and what this company is trying to do. If you own something renewing it isn't a bad faith attempt at stealing a trademark. That would be like Chevy's 'Bolt' trademark is out there, but a ton of people who have custom license plates that say 'Bolt' on them, by this logic they infringe on the trademark, then GM sues every license plate holder when their renew their plate for infringement because they renewed something they had before Chevy ever decided on trademarking their name.

    Here is a link to the original website dispure https://web.archive.org/web/20050403101457/http://www.tobacco.com/attempted-hijacking/

  26. Office Space Solutions by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Ummm, yeah, Peter, we are going to have to have you look for a better company name.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Office Space Solutions by Gary · · Score: 1

      I bet effing Lumbergh is behind the lawsuit.

    2. Re:Office Space Solutions by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      I was getting really disappointed in slashdot that nobody noticed this until I got to your post. Better late than never, thanks!

  27. Are those the guys who made the movie? by devloop · · Score: 1

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... I find their use of "Office Space" "virtually identical to, and/or confusingly similar" to the name of the movie, which was distinctive at the time that the Office Space Solutions, Inc. renewed and/or updated their business license.

  28. Lawyer versus Lawyer by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Once the case is settled, will the lawyers be humanely euthanised? For the betterment of humanity.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"