Hey all,
Imo, there are many levels of grey in this matter.
As a person who has been following these issues for a number of years,
there are very few people i come across who are concerned or outraged at
domain names being returned to trademark holders where the mark in question
has been uniquely created by the holder, and the owner of the name has
registered it in "bad faith".
However, in many cases, regular public domain words like crew, Tata, and
many others have been wrested by trademark owners from the name holders.
Corporations or individuals who use single public domain words like Amazon,
Crew, Real, Play, Sting, Excite, Yahoo, etc... and expect to monopolize the
use of those words thru litigation, are undermining Freedom of Expression,
and are probably going to experience public relations nightmares down the
road.
Now its time to smoke.
Swerve
> From: "Terry Knab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:33:51 -0500
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Register.com snaps up Afternic.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Corliss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Christopher Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 3:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Register.com snaps up Afternic.com
>
>
>> That statement is carefully worded to suggest that Ross is not alleging
> that
>> Afternic is a "cybersquatter". Furthermore, Ross is not even saying that
>> ICANN accused Afternic of being a cybersquatter (tho' you may imply it)..
>>
>> Simply that "they denied accreditation on that basis".
>>
>> Which as we know led to a court case and a deal with register.com.
>>
>> But as a holder of a number of domain names myself, I do agree with your
>> implication that selling a domain at a profit is often labelled as
>> "cybersquatting" by default rather than a commercial exchange governed by
>> the same laws as any other commercial exchange
>
> There's a big diffence between registering a domain, acutally USING it and
> then selling it at a profit than shelling out $10 to OpenSRS and then
> putting it on <insert name of aftermarket reseller> at some outlandish
> price.
>
>> Furthermore, I agree with you when you say that the term 'cybersquatter'
> is
>> frequently misused and defined incorrectly, thus leaving those in this
>> community, and the internet community as whole, with a bad taste in their
>> mouth whenever 'domain selling' is mentioned.
>
> As it rightfully should be.
>> things-go-better-with-coca-cola.com
>>
>> they are directly infringing the proprietary rights of Coca Cola (both
>> copyright and trade mark rights). But if somebody registers e-oven.com,
>> e-TV.com or e-stamps.com, they are merely adapting an old idea to a new
>> medium.
>
> Just ask Coke's lawyers how willing they are to pay for that domain.
> They're not. They'll sue you to get it on sheer principle. Just ask the
> individual who registered Micr0s0ft a couple years ago. Bill and his
> lawyers were right on top of him!
>
> Anyone who's dumb enough to think any corporation with lawyers that would
> make OJ's legal team look like pre-schoolers will shell out a huge amount of
> money for a domain name intentionally is smoking something!
>
>
>
