8 ms·

Something I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration? Around

• collabs 2mo ago
  Are you allowed to share how much (roughly) you sold it for?
  • comrade1234 2mo ago
    Not too much... $30K plus all legal fees I had paid.
    • donatj 2mo ago
      $30k? I was in a similar situation and sold for $2k... I should have held out!
      • ssl-3 2mo ago
        I once got $6k out of a domain that I was using. It was a very good name and I think I had a solid case for keeping it, but I was not prepared to fight for it. Anyway, you got $2k. That's way better than paying for lawyers and losing it anyway, isn't it?
        • collabs 2mo ago
          It would be a pretty crappy lawyer if you had the domain since BEFORE they applied for a trademark and you still lost your domain to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...
          • ssl-3 2mo ago
            In my case, I don't see it as a domain that I lost. I sold it. Trademarks are interesting. They don't need to be registered in order to be protected (although they can be registered), and they aren't usually absolute (even if they are registered). So, like: There's a bunch of different entities named "First Federal Bank" in the US, and that can be OK as long as they each operate in their own distinct areas. It definitely becomes problematic when the First Federal Bank that normally operates in/around Tuscaloosa tries to open a branch across the street from the First Federal Bank that is centered on Littlefield, Texas, but outside of conflict: It can be fine. A common name can also sometimes be used in distinctly-different lines of business or products. That's OK, too. Like Dove (the soap), and Dove (the candy bar). They're both trademarks -- they're even both registered. But they're distinct-enough products that it works: It's difficult to confuse a Dove candy bar with a Dove soap bar. And there's also the concept of well-known marks, like: Everyone knows what a Pepsi is. There's no chance that Pepsi would avoid seeking action against anyone else using that name for any purpose, and because Pepsi is so well-known there's very close to zero chance that a court would tolerate it either. A person can certainly start a company named Pepsi Shafting that makes drive shafts, but they won't be able to keep that name for very long. The cease-and-desist letter would appear approximately instantly and none of the threats it contained would be empty. --- Anyway, back to my case: At the time when I registered the domain, I was operating a one-man hands-on services company and I wasn't selling anything tangible. Meanwhile, the other party had a sleepy little business selling very specialized goods online. They weren't offering services at all. It was just a little post-bubble online shop like so many others. I discovered them as I did my diligence before I registered the domain. I was aware that we weren't doing the same things at all. Like Dove and Dove, this was fine. The other company subsequently branched out and got pretty darned big. I don't know if they ran into some VC money or what, but I'm completely confident that you've heard of them. Since you're on HN, there's a good chance you've even bought stuff from them at some point. Hell, there's pretty profound chance that the founder will be reading this comment. :) These days, it would probably be pass muster in court as a well-known brand, like Pepsi certainly is. But way back then (over 20 years ago now), it would not have. So while I do have reasonable certainty that I could have kept my domain if I wanted to, it just wasn't worth that much to me. In fact, it turns out that was worth exactly $6,000.00 to me. The nissan.com case is certainly compelling. It was included in my research. It sure would be funny if my domain were added to the roster of similar incidents after a protracted court battle, but meh. I regret nothing, and I appreciate the excellent work that the new owner has been doing in advocating for consumer rights. It's literally all good.
    • tonyhart7 2mo ago
      could you share which domain ???
    • joering2 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      • falsemyrmidon 2mo ago
        Is this an ad?
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          Yes. For some reason OpenAI is now spamming HN.
    • VladVladikoff 2mo ago
      30k is nice! I once got $1000 for dubstepradio.com Don’t regret selling it for that much at all.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
• franga2000 2mo ago
  > I shouldn't offer it for sale as that would show the arbitration board that I don't need the domain. [...] So I could keep the domain but not use it for commerce... If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. I'm sure if you finished you game and offered it for sale on that domain, you'd be fine. You're actually using it and in a non-infringing way. So yes, if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark, but alas...
• pbhjpbhj 2mo ago
  A reply said this, but it's dead: >If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. [...] >if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark [...] I disagree, but they made a point and did so clearly. Why that person felt someone else's chosen commercial use of a domain should trump anyone's non-commercial (or less commercial) use, I don't know. All business assets are for sale at the right price, right? Even whilst living by the business at a particular domain, I'd have sold that domain for £200k, probably a lot less. Same as for any business asset, even (especially?) those in commercial use.
  • wredcoll 2mo ago
    I agree with you about assets being for sale (if someone wrote a big enough check I'd sell my house right now) and commercial not trumping non commercial, but there was, at least for a while, a reasonable argument for opposing "domain squatting" under the theory that domain names were a limited resource and society as a whole benefits from those resources being used more optimally. It's like concert tickets or any other limited resource that is transferable, "society" generally wants most people to have access to them but if they're too cheap then it's easy for one rich person to just buy them all. Anyways, domain names are perhaps less limited these days (and google/claude kind of remove user's direct interaction anyways) if the usage of non-dotcoms are anything to go by. Also it's super hard to distinguish personal private use vs squatting.
    • arcbyte 2mo ago
      A lot of us still consider domain squatters to be trolls. Use it or lose it.
• gruez 2mo ago
  >But this was early on for domains and I wonder what the process is like now. UDRP: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-01-01-2020-en https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-polici...
• detourdog 2mo ago
  This has been my understanding. I was told by lawyer in in th 90's that it would be described as squatting in court.
  • pixl97 2mo ago
    Be a big company. Look for interesting sounding domain names that are owned but not being used by individuals. Create a product with the same name. Sue the person with the domain name and take it from them. Win, because you're big.
    • detourdog 2mo ago
      Fortunately my DNS entry starts in 1996 and would be covered by the first clause. BigCos claims would need to predate 1996 for my domain to be seized.
      • iwontberude 2mo ago
        Yeah but you still have to hire attorneys so for some people they will just settle and take any offer
        • markdown 2mo ago
          Why do you need to hire attorneys? Is that a legal requirement?
          • iwontberude 2mo ago
            [dead]
    • delfinom 2mo ago
      https://nissan.com/ https://nissan.com/ Archive.org it to see little man beating big corporation
      • 2mo ago
• ohashi 2mo ago
  full disclaimer, I have worked on https://udrp.tools https://udrp.tools for something like a decade now as the developer. We're working on an AI chatbot to help answer these types of questions based on our dataset and other data sources (actual wipo guidelines, udrpperspectives.org). The short answer is no, the answer our AI gave with citations/explanation is below if youre curious: Does publicly listing a domain for sale mean you'd automatically lose a UDRP arbitration if someone has a trademark for it? No. A public sale listing is not an automatic loss. Here's how panels actually decide these cases. The controlling rule Bad faith based on a sale offer requires that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling to the trademark owner (or a competitor) for more than out-of-pocket costs. Two things must be true at once: (1) the primary purpose of registration was to sell, and (2) the target was that specific trademark holder. A generic public listing on Sedo or Afternic doesn't automatically satisfy either requirement. (WIPO Overview 3.1; UDRP Perspectives 3.5) What panels actually look at No single factor decides it. Panels weigh all of these: How distinctive is the trademark? A coined word like KODAK is treated very differently from a generic term like CLOUD. Did the registrant plausibly know about the mark when registering? Famous marks raise this inference; obscure marks don't. Was the offer directed at the trademark owner specifically, or listed publicly for any buyer? Does the asking price only make sense if the trademark owner is the buyer, or is it consistent with general market prices? Does the registrant hold a broader portfolio of generic/descriptive domains, or a collection of brand-matching ones? Was the domain registered after the mark became well-known, or before? Is there a credible non-trademark reason to want the domain? Things that do NOT automatically mean bad faith Listing a domain publicly for sale (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Asking a high price (UDRP Perspectives 3.5; WIPO Overview 3.1.1) Even reaching out to the trademark owner directly — panels look at whether multiple parties were approached and whether the registration was brand-specific (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Wanting to profit — legitimate domain investing is a recognized lawful activity under UDRP (UDRP Perspectives 2.6) When the calculus shifts against you The harder cases are where the domain is identical to a highly distinctive coined brand, there's no plausible use for the domain other than trading on the trademark, and the asking price is only realistic for the trademark owner itself. In those cases panels have found bad faith even without a direct approach to the owner. A notable example is the three-member panel majority in WIPO case D2022-1570, which found that the asking price implied the complainant was the only conceivable buyer — though a dissent disagreed, illustrating that even these edge cases are not automatic. Bottom line The outcome depends on: how famous and distinctive the mark is, whether you had it in your sights at registration, whether there's a credible independent reason to want the domain, and who you're actually marketing it to. Generic terms with multiple plausible buyers, listed publicly, have repeatedly survived UDRP challenges. (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Coined-brand matches with sky-high asking prices and no other credible use have not.
• 1f60c 2mo ago
  I tried to register a domain like acme.stream through Cloudflare Registrar and it asked me to affirm I had Acme Widgets Corp.'s permission [edit: I might be wrong about this part, since I'm in a totally different niche, but the pop-up freaked me out]. I went with a different domain.
  • chrisrhoden 2mo ago
    This is a required TMCH assertion for certain TLDs.
    • hackernudes 2mo ago
      TMCH = Trademark Clearinghouse
• Beijinger 2mo ago
  Never be intimidated by a trademark. Especially, if your domain is older than the trademark. Even if it isn't, there are many trademark classes.
  • appplication 2mo ago
    Easier said than done, you don’t get lawyers fees back for winning a frivolous lawsuit, but you are required to pay them if you want to win. It’s entirely feasible for a company to force your hand in this way.
    • JoshTriplett 2mo ago
      > you don’t get lawyers fees back for winning a frivolous lawsuit Not automatically, but you can attempt to get them back through the court.
      • appplication 2mo ago
        Using California as an example, only case where this typically applies would be if you specifically have bound contract with a provision specifying winner is awarded legal fees. Trademark lawsuits are by and large not contract disputes so it would generally be not applicable. You might be able to recover court costs via further legal action, but they tend to be minuscule in comparison to lawyer fees, and recovering them will cost you additional lawyers fees.
      • skissane 2mo ago
        It depends on the country. In the US, you normally don't recover costs even if you win; sometimes you can get an exception, especially if your opponent behaved in a particularly egregious manner. In most of the rest of the English-speaking world, the normal rule is the loser pays a significant percentage of the winner's costs. I know here in Australia, the default is the loser pays (on average) 50–75% of the winner's costs ("standard costs")–the variation is because the judge sends the case to an auditor who reviews the winner's legal bill against the rule book, and so the exact percentage depends on factors like which tasks the winner's lawyer charged them for, their hourly rate, what the auditor viewed as reasonable given the complexity of the case, etc. Convince the judge the loser behaved egregiously, and then you get indemnity costs, which are closer to 85-100%. This has pros and cons. For the "little guy", it makes lawsuits much more survivable if you are confident you are going to win; it makes you much more inclined to just fold if you think there is a significant risk you'll lose.
• sgloutnikov 2mo ago
  Reminded me of a Planet Money podcast episode with the milk.com owner, who also had early internet years domains. Fun listen if people are interested. [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/03/nx-s1-5526903/domain-name-value-milk-dot-com https://www.npr.org/2025/09/03/nx-s1-5526903/domain-name-val...
• TZubiri 2mo ago
  Not sure about the legal theory behind domains and intent to sell, but fact-wise my defense would be that I consider all of my assets to be for sale, the only difference is the price, so they would have to prove that my 'intent to sell' was significant enough. At the very least price would have needed to be discussed.
• realty_geek 2mo ago
  A bit tangential but I imagine some of the smart folks here might have interesting opinions on this. There are a few sites popping up that let you do something interesting with content at a given url by changing the domain name slightly. The best example is changing the g in github.com to u. That results in uithub.com making the data there LLM friendly. Is that considered infringement?
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• RGamma 2mo ago
  What was the domain?
• madprops 2mo ago
  Hah. Just now I was reading about how Sony hated Michael Jackson because he owned half of the music licenses, and some say Sony might be been involved in his demise. My point being, maybe Sony is not a nice company.
  • bahmboo 2mo ago
    [flagged]
• sen 2mo ago
  Sony got my domain registrar to transfer my domain to them without a single email or notice to me whatsoever. I had been using it since the late 90s or early 2000s when you still had to apply and renew via paper forms, and they said (according to the reply from my registrar when I asked why it had been transferred) that I was squatting it... for a service they didn't release until the 2010s. Sony have always been Disney-esque in their legal aggression. They don't care if they're right, they have teams of lawyers and they're quite happy to sic them on any tiny thing because they know you can't fight back even if you wanted to.