homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & webwork

Domain Names Forum

    
Domain Name Squating & WIPO
RichTC




msg:3511049
 12:25 am on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi all,

Currently a client of ours has their domain name held by a domain name squater and are going down the WIPO route to get control of it having had no joy from contacting the registered owners directly.

We expect that the ruling will go in favour of our client as a) their Ltd company name is the same as the domain b) its a registered trademark c) they own the .co.uk domain version and d) they are established and known in the market as the name. So its a no brainer.

Meanwhile all the squatter is doing with the domain is parking it with affiliate adverts. They are probably gaining from this due to type in traffic looking for the official company.

My point in mentioning this is that it turns out that the domain squatter has some 40,000 domains under their control and has had at least 40 previous WIPO ruling against them where they have been forced to hand back the domain names to the official company and it looks like they actively seek out domains in company names to gain from type in traffic to them.

I dont know about anyone else but in these circumstances it makes my blood boil. This outfit should be closed down and WIPO should be able to impose massive fines against them where the ruling goes against them. Clearly its no deterant for this company to keep doing this time and time again knowing that at worst they have to hand the domain back and at best they gain loads of income from type in traffic looking for the official companies.

In all its plain wrong in my book, they wont be the first company to do it and wont be the last but i think WIPO needs to start getting tough for the future good of the internet

 

natim




msg:3511076
 12:57 am on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

is this squatter from the bahamas or cayman islands?

RichTC




msg:3511100
 1:50 am on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Belize but your close enough!

davezan




msg:3511110
 2:14 am on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

WIPO should be able to impose massive fines against them where the ruling goes against them.

If WIPO is able to collect monetary damages from the respondent, it's also fair the respondent gets to collect such from complainants who file potentially frivolous disputes and eventually lose them.

Besides, WIPO has no mechanism to get such from people in countries who otherwise don't recognize their authority.

David

RichTC




msg:3511636
 11:27 pm on Nov 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

davezan

If WIPO is able to collect monetary damages from the respondent, it's also fair the respondent gets to collect such from complainants who file potentially frivolous disputes and eventually lose them.

I would agree with you but the fact is that the majority of these cases are against chancers that sit on domains in the hope of making a few quid out of them.

Look, the way i see it is that if you get a domain like this-domain-name-isgreat.com for a couple of dollars and you spotted it first and someone wants it and will offer you $1 million then thats your good fortune.

What i dont like is chancers registering domains that they know relate to a company names to get type in traffic and the official company has to pay $2000 USD via WIPO and a long drawn out battle to get it back off them. They know the domains relate to a company - they actively look for them!

In the case ive outlined above the company makes a business out of doing this - shut them down i say, its not helping the developing internet is it?

Hunter




msg:3512242
 2:55 am on Nov 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

a) their Ltd company name is the same as the domain b) its a registered trademark c) they own the .co.uk domain version and d) they are established and known in the market as the name. So its a no brainer.

And yet they've just now realized that someone else owns the .com? Is there a "no brainer" running the company or in charge of web marketing? :)

RichTC




msg:3513256
 12:45 am on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hunter,

So in your view then it should be a total free for all and if i registered say pepsicola.com before they did then thats my good fortune and they should pay me for it?

Its like a form of blackmail imo - This is where i think the internet needs tightening up further. At least WIPO offers some recourse, but i still think that you should be able to claim for your costs back.

A blue chip company should not have to "Worry" that some chancer has registered their company name before they did.

Im not talking here about generic names, im talking about company names that mean nothing to anyone on the internet other than the company they belong to, ie a brand name.

Dont you think webmasters should have a moral obligation to act in the right way?.

gpmgroup




msg:3513517
 12:16 pm on Nov 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

The problem is it isnít always so black and white

There are cases where large organizations use both trademarks with UDRP and the courts for overreaching.

Mr Nissan received a lot of hassle over his name Nissan.com from the Nissan Motorís Corporation for example.

Take a (fictitious) pure generic like Apple Ė Should Apple Computers be able to take apple.com and get costs too? Or should they have to buy it from the existing registrant? What about it the registrant was the Beetle's Apple Corp. Limited (Music)

Slightly more confusing is Perfume Bay.com should ebay be entitled to perfumebay.com? Which Mark takes precedence Perfume Bay TM or Ebay TM? [ca9.uscourts.gov...]

A powerful brand like Nike is very well protected. And even Nike isnít a made up word in the Greek mythology she was the Goddess of Victory.


So should costs get awarded at UDRP?

In the end UDRP is about resolving a dispute quickly and cheaply. A complainant can always go straight to court without using UDRP (as Microsoft is currently doing) if they wish to punish a registrant for pecuniary damages.

Sure UDRP has its failings, one of the worst is where a single panellist is allowed to let his own personal views cloud the decision making process and his decisions get skewed accordingly.

Hunter




msg:3514819
 11:24 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Not saying that at all RichTC, just commenting that in the real world it's often best to get in touch with reality as soon as possible :)

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved