Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.155.147

Forum Moderators: buckworks & webwork

Message Too Old, No Replies

Cybersquatting Case Rejected By Nominet

   
5:56 pm on Aug 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Interesting: Free speech seems to be acceptable, in this instance. I guess it's a fine line people tread when they run a gripe site online.
Cybersquatting Case Rejected By Nominet [theregister.co.uk]
A gripe site for people who claim high street opticians Optical Express “ruined” their eyesight with botched LASIK surgery has been allowed to remain online, after a cybersquatting panel ruled that the owner has the right to free speech.

7:29 pm on Aug 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



I wonder if the sites author published a book by the same title if OE could have the title suppressed? I somewhat doubt that, though the lawsuits might still follow. However, truth tends to be a defense AND such lawsuits tend to do more to attract attention to "the bad press" so they're advised only in unique cases (such as bald faced lies).

One has to wonder when, if ever, will "big corp" learn that one has be quite discerning when it comes to suing the little guy/gal?
12:17 am on Aug 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lucy24 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time Top Contributors Of The Month



Any chance someone could explain in words of two syllables what "cybersquatting" has to do with it? I always thought that involved domain names that you're not using-- and won't let anyone else use either.*

I am probably not the only American who was surprised to learn that the UK has legally protected free speech. They must have added a rule when I wasn't looking.


* Modern-day equivalent of the Indo-European dragon. See C. Watkins, 1987.
12:48 am on Aug 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Any chance someone could explain in words of two syllables what "cybersquatting" has to do with it?


It doesn't apply in this case. It would apply if the person used the famous/registered mark, in the domain, to "trade off" (make money, "pretending to be 'the trademark'"). Not so here. The user is simply using the mark to make clear that their grievance "is WITH or AGAINST" the "company known as (the mark)".

Somewhat like writing an article using the trademarked name in the title. In this case "the title" is used in the website name for the purpose of clarifying what the site is about - without otherwise intending to profit or make coin "(trading) off the mark".

Good decision by the jurists.

Bad decision by the trademark holder to make a case of it. They've done more to drive attention to the website than the site owner likely ever could have by himself.

One Home Simpson award for BigCorp. Say it with me:

DOH!