5 ms·

If these companies notice, they can file a UDRP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unifo

by smitop 6y ago

If these companies notice, they can file a UDRP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...) request, on the basis that the domains infringe their trademarks, and were registered and used in "bad faith".

gruez 6y ago
>and were registered and used in "bad faith". How were they registered in bad faith? He's not extorting money from netfilx, nor is he trying to deceive people into thinking he's neflix.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  What's he trying to do with it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  UDRP typically rules in favor of the holder of the unambiguous trademark in these kinds of cases. As an example, "Exxon Mobil" refers unambiguously to a single entity only, and has no other possible uses, so anyone registering exxonmobil.{anything} would lose if the company came after them. No one else has any right to that trademark, and ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains. If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you. Contrast this with the case of, e.g., McDonald, which is a widely used surname that predates the existence of the trademark. So long as you specifically aren't trying to cause confusion with the McDonalds restaurant trademark, you can use "mcdonalds" in a domain name.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    McDonald can use it after going through an expensive lawsuit where the big co will try to bully the little guy. Which is what happened to nissan.com
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    What about .sucks? Couldn’t one claim free speech? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2015/06/29/saga-of-sucks-domain-generates-laughter-agony/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2015/06/29/saga-of-suc...
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      .sucks is a very special case. I wouldn't try to generalize anything going on there to other TLDs.
    - kevindong 6y ago
      Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people. It is not a valid concept between two private parties. https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace-free-speech/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace...
      - boomlinde 6y ago
        Yes, but the argument GP responded to was that "ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains" and that "If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you." He argues that the practice has its basis in trademark laws. If it is so, nominative use of a trademark to e.g. criticize a product is considered fair use and shouldn't be ruled out by ICANN on that basis. It either wouldn't be, or ICANN have some other basis than trademark law for their rulings. So GP's point raises an interesting question. If you had registered e.g. "google.sucks" or something similar in which the FQDN arguably forms a valid nominative use in itself in good faith to use that domain to criticize Google's business decisions and products, does ICANN have some other policy outside respecting trademark law that would compel them to take the name back and give it to Google? The answer to that question isn't "Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people". That's a pointless non sequitur at best, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it used in defense of huge monopolies that are well deserved of scrutiny in the interest of defending freedom of expression.
- bawolff 6y ago
  He admitted he only registered it because netflix didn't, and he had no other non netflix related website in mind to host there. I think that's borderline bad faith. Its not exactly good faith. If he had never heard of netflix he never would have registered it.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > How were they registered in bad faith? The article literally says that he only registered it because it clashed with an existing company. He didn't want the domain name for any other purpose.

by smitop 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

>and were registered and used in "bad faith". How were they registered in bad faith? He's not extorting money from netfilx, nor is he trying to deceive people into thinking he's neflix.

DangitBobby 6y ago
What's he trying to do with it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
CydeWeys 6y ago
UDRP typically rules in favor of the holder of the unambiguous trademark in these kinds of cases. As an example, "Exxon Mobil" refers unambiguously to a single entity only, and has no other possible uses, so anyone registering exxonmobil.{anything} would lose if the company came after them. No one else has any right to that trademark, and ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains. If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you. Contrast this with the case of, e.g., McDonald, which is a widely used surname that predates the existence of the trademark. So long as you specifically aren't trying to cause confusion with the McDonalds restaurant trademark, you can use "mcdonalds" in a domain name.
- sumedh 6y ago
  McDonald can use it after going through an expensive lawsuit where the big co will try to bully the little guy. Which is what happened to nissan.com
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  What about .sucks? Couldn’t one claim free speech? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2015/06/29/saga-of-sucks-domain-generates-laughter-agony/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2015/06/29/saga-of-suc...
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    .sucks is a very special case. I wouldn't try to generalize anything going on there to other TLDs.
  - kevindong 6y ago
    Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people. It is not a valid concept between two private parties. https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace-free-speech/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-workplace...
    - boomlinde 6y ago
      Yes, but the argument GP responded to was that "ICANN enforces trademark rights on domains" and that "If the trademark already existed when you bought the domain, and especially if it's widely used and ambiguous, you're gonna lose that domain if the company comes after you." He argues that the practice has its basis in trademark laws. If it is so, nominative use of a trademark to e.g. criticize a product is considered fair use and shouldn't be ruled out by ICANN on that basis. It either wouldn't be, or ICANN have some other basis than trademark law for their rulings. So GP's point raises an interesting question. If you had registered e.g. "google.sucks" or something similar in which the FQDN arguably forms a valid nominative use in itself in good faith to use that domain to criticize Google's business decisions and products, does ICANN have some other policy outside respecting trademark law that would compel them to take the name back and give it to Google? The answer to that question isn't "Free speech is a right issued by governments to the people". That's a pointless non sequitur at best, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it used in defense of huge monopolies that are well deserved of scrutiny in the interest of defending freedom of expression.
bawolff 6y ago
He admitted he only registered it because netflix didn't, and he had no other non netflix related website in mind to host there. I think that's borderline bad faith. Its not exactly good faith. If he had never heard of netflix he never would have registered it.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> How were they registered in bad faith? The article literally says that he only registered it because it clashed with an existing company. He didn't want the domain name for any other purpose.