Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23
| This reminds me
somewhat of domain name squatters, those foresightful mercenaries in the early days of the web who registered domain names of successful companies before the companies knew what was happening. Then, like a ransom, they would sell the names of said companies back to the companies for a hefty price.
»library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/128775.html
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
|
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | That is legitimate. It is no different than buying property that is underdeveloped and then all of a sudden the area becomes developed and it is worth big bux. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Wrong, it would be like someone going to another country where you don't do business, and set up a store with identical products and signage to your store, and then live off your ad campaigns for business. And then when you goto legally challenge them in their country, the judge says "they were here first, you loose". |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Ummmm, read the original comment. It made no mention of profiteering off of the name. It merely stated the names were held ransom for the company to buy back so they could use the web addresses.
Even if they were making ad revenue off of the name, the fact of the matter is they bought the rights to the name so they can do whatever they want with it.
Your analogy just doesn't make sense. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to grandpinaple
No.. it's not legitimate. The laws protect TM holders or those with certain copyrights.
There are specific laws on the books when it comes to buying and selling the name of a company that owns the legitimate rights to it.
If you purchased, for example, Microsoft, and had only intention of selling the domain name back to the owner, Microsoft, for a hefty amount of money (more than what was a reasonable cost (ie, your expenses) then you can actually be liable for some pretty hefty damages.
If anyone REALLY wants to press this one, I'll dig up the laws on that.. but really don't care to, at this time. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to grandpinaple
I'm sorry to say, this was dealt with in a BIG wa back in the early 2000's... even registering a domain name with, say, 1 key stroke different than a well known name, those people were being sued and losing all the time.
Example, even registering eNay.com (where the N being next to the B was a common mistake) was frowned upon by the courts.. domain siphoning (using the like of another's established reputation or "like" name) has stood the test in court many time to be a big fat no.
As for simply registering a domain name, not using it, sitting on it, and not allowing someone to have "their" TM/SM/C name is also a big fat NO. The registrar, with the proper complaint, can remove the domain name from the registrant and ultimately turn it over to the mark owner.
If the name wasn't protected in the first place, you do nothing with the domain, and you don't try to "stick it to the business you squatted it from" then you are ok.
There really is not a simple black and white answer to this situation. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
You are missing the point. The question was whether it was legitimate or not. There is a difference between legality and legitimacy. Sometimes the presence of legality leads to legitimacy. This is just another example of unnecessary medling in the free market preventing wise investors from profiting. Seizing the domain name to give it to someone else is the equivalent of seizing physical property. |
|
