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.

50 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.

  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 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.
    9. 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.

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

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

    11. 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!
    12. 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.

  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 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?
  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
  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.
  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
  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.
  11. 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 Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 2

      Barratry: "the persistent incitement of litigation".

    9. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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