4 ms·

I believe companies usually claim back 'stolen' domains with trademark claims. I wonder if the his claim that it's "Michel in Guides" will do anything to hold t

I believe companies usually claim back 'stolen' domains with trademark claims. I wonder if the his claim that it's "Michel in Guides" will do anything to hold this claim at bay.

kens 14y ago
This didn't work for Pana Vision, a cybersquatter that displayed photos of Pana, IL on panavision.com. Panavision (the company) ended up with the domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...
eli 14y ago
Yup, WIPO has a arbitration system that should theoretically allow them to get their domain back.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  It isn't really "their" domain. They not only failed to renew it, but they also failed to contest it when it was in suspended status. They have at least 14 days to save "their" domain and then it entered the general pool and became someone else's domain entirely.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
nathanstitt 14y ago
Not always, and not quickly. See http://nissan.com/ http://nissan.com/ for an example that's been dragging on for around 10 years or so. He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close to it. It's a David vs. Goliath situation that's for sure, I'm amazed he's managed to keep the domain.
- laurencei 14y ago
  Why do you think he is "close" to squatting? He registered a 'nissan' company in 1991, and registered the domain in 1994. Just because a 'big' company missed out - its not his fault.
  - nathanstitt 14y ago
    Because he's not using it primarily for his computer company any longer. Instead he's running ads for insurance and talking about the lawsuit. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. Instead, I believe that the domain would serve a better purpose if it pointed to something that met the expectations of people who blindly type nissan.com into their web browser looking for an auto. Which in my case is exactly how I found out about it.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  > He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close to it That doesn't make sense. Sounds like you, and several other people, think that anyone who is under-utilising a domain is automatically "squatting." That the biggest user of a property is entitled to it... He runs a business, the business is called "Nissan Computer(s)." That to me is the furthest thing from squatting...
  - nathanstitt 14y ago
    I disagree & believe it does. Where is he advertising the business on that web site? I see it mentioned in the header but that's not even a link. Instead he's running adds for insurance on it. In my mind it comes down to what visitors of the website expect to see. I believe that the only possible expectation for someone visiting nissan.com is to see Nissan Motors. (At least in North America, I'm aware that Nissan is a popular name etc) I'm not saying that he's even a bad guy here. If I was in his shoes I'm sure I'd feel exactly the same, he had the name first, even before Nissan Motors existed. But, times change. Leaving aside the legal questions, I believe that there would be less confusion caused if nissan.com pointed to Nissan Motors, therefore it would be in this case a social good thing to have it be so.
owksley 14y ago
It must be hard to make the case that the domain was stolen, since they simply allowed it return to the market place where it was legally bought by somebody else. In the UK a trademark is only valid for a nominated category, so two different companies can legitimately have the same trademark if used for different purposes, but I don't know how the rules works in France.
spmurrayzzz 14y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the prevailing precedent here is found in Lamparello v. Falwell ( 420 F.3d 309 4th Cir. 2005 ) "On appeal in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the earlier decisions, ruling that there was not a "likelihood of confusion" between Lamparello's and Falwell's official site; that there was no trademark infringement based on "initial interest confusion" for sites that were non-commercial and critical of the trademark holder; and since Lamparello's site was non-commercial, there was no "bad faith intent to profit" and it was not cybersquatting."[1] Im not sure Michelin Guides has standing in this case, at least not under trademark law... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamparello_v._Falwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamparello_v._Falwell

I believe companies usually claim back 'stolen' domains with trademark claims. I wonder if the his claim that it's "Michel in Guides" will do anything to hold this claim at bay.

kens 14y ago

This didn't work for Pana Vision, a cybersquatter that displayed photos of Pana, IL on panavision.com. Panavision (the company) ended up with the domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...

eli 14y ago

Yup, WIPO has a arbitration system that should theoretically allow them to get their domain back.

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
It isn't really "their" domain. They not only failed to renew it, but they also failed to contest it when it was in suspended status. They have at least 14 days to save "their" domain and then it entered the general pool and became someone else's domain entirely.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

nathanstitt 14y ago

Not always, and not quickly. See http://nissan.com/ http://nissan.com/ for an example that's been dragging on for around 10 years or so. He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close to it. It's a David vs. Goliath situation that's for sure, I'm amazed he's managed to keep the domain.

laurencei 14y ago
Why do you think he is "close" to squatting? He registered a 'nissan' company in 1991, and registered the domain in 1994. Just because a 'big' company missed out - its not his fault.
- nathanstitt 14y ago
  Because he's not using it primarily for his computer company any longer. Instead he's running ads for insurance and talking about the lawsuit. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. Instead, I believe that the domain would serve a better purpose if it pointed to something that met the expectations of people who blindly type nissan.com into their web browser looking for an auto. Which in my case is exactly how I found out about it.
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
> He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close to it That doesn't make sense. Sounds like you, and several other people, think that anyone who is under-utilising a domain is automatically "squatting." That the biggest user of a property is entitled to it... He runs a business, the business is called "Nissan Computer(s)." That to me is the furthest thing from squatting...
- nathanstitt 14y ago
  I disagree & believe it does. Where is he advertising the business on that web site? I see it mentioned in the header but that's not even a link. Instead he's running adds for insurance on it. In my mind it comes down to what visitors of the website expect to see. I believe that the only possible expectation for someone visiting nissan.com is to see Nissan Motors. (At least in North America, I'm aware that Nissan is a popular name etc) I'm not saying that he's even a bad guy here. If I was in his shoes I'm sure I'd feel exactly the same, he had the name first, even before Nissan Motors existed. But, times change. Leaving aside the legal questions, I believe that there would be less confusion caused if nissan.com pointed to Nissan Motors, therefore it would be in this case a social good thing to have it be so.

owksley 14y ago

It must be hard to make the case that the domain was stolen, since they simply allowed it return to the market place where it was legally bought by somebody else. In the UK a trademark is only valid for a nominated category, so two different companies can legitimately have the same trademark if used for different purposes, but I don't know how the rules works in France.

spmurrayzzz 14y ago

If I'm not mistaken, the prevailing precedent here is found in Lamparello v. Falwell ( 420 F.3d 309 4th Cir. 2005 ) "On appeal in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the earlier decisions, ruling that there was not a "likelihood of confusion" between Lamparello's and Falwell's official site; that there was no trademark infringement based on "initial interest confusion" for sites that were non-commercial and critical of the trademark holder; and since Lamparello's site was non-commercial, there was no "bad faith intent to profit" and it was not cybersquatting."[1] Im not sure Michelin Guides has standing in this case, at least not under trademark law... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamparello_v._Falwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamparello_v._Falwell