Lawsuit Filed Over Domain Name Registered 16 Years Before Plaintiff's Use 190
HughPickens.com writes: Cybersquatting is registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit to those businesses. Now Andrew Allmann writes at Domain Name Wire that New York company Office Space Solutions, Inc. has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against Jason Kneen over the domain name WorkBetter.com that Kneen registered in 1999 although Office Space Solutions didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. "Workbetter.com is virtually identical to, and/or confusingly similar to the WORK BETTER Service Mark, which was distinctive at the time that the Defendant renewed and/or updated the registration of workbetter.com," says the lawsuit. But according to an Office Space Solutions' filing with the USPTO, it didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. Office Space Solutions is making the argument that the domain name was renewed in bad faith. According to Kneen, Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him and after it failed to acquire the domain name, is now trying to take it via a lawsuit.
Some notes... (Score:5, Informative)
1. You don't need to make commercial use to have the right of a domain
2. Use of the domain is anything that links to the domain (even if not in "public" use)
Frivoulus case by the look of it. Service Mark owners should have the case dismissed with prejudice.
Copyright Law (Score:4, Interesting)
This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Interesting)
This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.
I think that is not completely true. A simple exchange of letters and perhaps an explicit licence for a nominal sum ($1 for example) or a memorandum of agreement that the potential infringer will not enter into the domain that the trademark coveres would probably be sufficient to defend the trademark. And significantly less expensive.
This type of behaviour is stupid if they are merely trying to defend their trademark.
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.
A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.
A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.
Like the legal agreement Apple Computer made with Apple Corp never to enter the music business in return for keeping the Apple Computer name?
Apple decided to enter the music business, Apple Corp. sued, lost and had to pay £2m to the company that had infringed on their trademark, thanks to that agreement. In the face of an army of lawyers, not only do these agreements offer minimal protection, they can actually make your position weaker.
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Informative)
If the Apple Corps didn't want Apple Computer to even be able to sell music, they shouldn't have agreed to legal terms that would allow them to do so. Unfortunately they had a legal agreement with Apple that permitted Apple to do exactly that as long as they weren't distributing tapes, CDs, or other physical media. It's not really surprising that a record company failed to see the coming storm of digital music and was foolish enough to include language about physical media. Sucks to be them, but that was the agreement they made.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a decent overview of the various court cases between the two over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, there was a lot more to it than that.
But what Apple Corp s chose to protect remained un-infringed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing someone who isn't infringing your trademark is not defending your trademark. It is harassing an innocent person.
Re:Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful)
But their lawyer saw an opportunity to waste their clients money and make some in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Copyright Law (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that if someone else was using the same name for 16 years prior to them and they claim that it's confusingly similar, they're effectively arguing that their trademark is invalid. Either they had a trademark and spent 16 years not enforcing it, or they failed to notice/mention prior art when they applied for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The one you are speaking about did not use the same "words" as a domain name 16 years before they got sued. ... and tried to sell it to the company which is suing now. However they could not agree on the price.
Read the summary. They blocked the domain name explicitly to sell it later
In Germany the suer likely would win ...
Re: (Score:2)
Except the domain was registered BEFORE the trademark.
That's the key point - if the domain was registered AFTER the trademark, then yes, trademark law is clear on that. But in this case, the trademark was created long after the domain wa
Re: (Score:3)
It's similar to the case where the guy got his YouTube URL taken away just because someone with money wanted it. Or Nissan.com - the original owner had the store way before the car company renamed themselves.
Another example would be McDonald's restaurant(USA, Arches) suing MacDonald's family restaurant(UK). They lost, because there had been a MacDonald family restaurant(reincarnated on a regular basis, but always with 'MacDonald' in the name) there since before the USA was a country...
Re: (Score:2)
otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property.
I generally agree with you in principle as to how trademark law ought to be interpreted.
I think its an interesting question to ask though. Does a domain name constitute property. Its not as if its tangible. Its record in a database, perhaps more importantly its a record in someones elses's database. That is before you even start to address who really owns that database. Is the 'private' organization ICANN or is it the US Department of Commerce.
In any case its hard for me to see how domain name can be rightly call property. Certainly this post belongs to Slashdot. I doubt anyone would get far asserting otherwise EULA or not. In the end its an electronic record that governs the behavior of an application (Slashdot's comment system) just like any DNS record does.
Similarly if you town decided to rename the street you live on would have any legal recourse (other than ballot box).
I can see how a digital record that you personally control, is rightly analogous to a 'paper or effect' in the fourth amendment sense. Once you hand it off to someone else though or it because a 'fact' in a public database I am not sure you can call it yours anymore and I am even less sure its 'property'
Morons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope the court basically tosses this and says "you can't cybersquat if you do it 15 years before the whiny plaintiff".
Stupid lawyers.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope the court punishes Office Space Solutions for trying to abuse the legal system.
Merely tossing it will not prohibit them from trying again.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any lawsuit that uses "and/or" should be immediately tossed and the lawyers fined for being shit at law. Make a specific argument, don't shotgun every possible infringement on the books. If you do, it's obvious you hope the defendant will simply cave in and not challenge you.
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of one case in the court system you want 5 or 6 separate cases clogging up the court system? Not to mention these are civil cases where the burden of proof is lower, there will be times when the argument to any one point is unconvincing but the sum of the arguments is.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of one case in the court system you want 5 or 6 separate cases clogging up the court system?
Exactly. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (d) (2):
(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.
We want/i> to consolidate actions as much as possible.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Informative)
Tossing it will indeed prohibit them from trying again if the case is dismissed with prejudice. They could try the same stunt with a different service mark and a different defendant, but at that point any defense attorney worth his or her retainer is going to bring up the previously-dismissed suit as proof of acting in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering why this falls under US jurisdiction but I answered my own question when I looked up wiki ".com". The US has jurisdiction over that TLD.
I hope they toss this case too.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Given their name, I highly suspect that Milton will burn their building down.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have given him a slice of birthday cake...
Re:Morons ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would guess that the intent is not to make it to court.
The intent is probably to run lots of discovery and waist time tell the guy runs out of money and eventually agrees to settle by giving them the domain.
This is the kind of thing I would love to see the EFF grab and do pro-bona.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If he has any brains, simply send every time there is "discovery" the same sheet of paper proving he has had it for 15 years.
You can tell the plaintiffs lawyers to go fuck them selves over and over and over again.
I have actually used the words "go fuck yourself" in response to a lawyers letter.
Lawyers hate being called out as the spineless slime they are.
Re: (Score:3)
The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.
Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the lawyers get paid regardless, I would hardly call them stupid. The plaintiff, now HE'S stupid, and he's taking bad advice from greedy lawyers.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why I hope the case gets dismissed with prejudice, possibly opening the way for a counter-case of barratry.
Not sure when the last time I saw barratry successfully claimed, but a counter claim for damages and legal fees based on the case being frivolous, yes, that is quite possible. I feel it is clear the plaintiff is pursuing this case, knowing it lacks legal standing, to coerce the domain holder into transferring it since they failed to acquire it through negotiation. The case shouldn't even reach the discovery phase; it should probably die from the first or second motion to dismiss for failure to state a cla
Re: (Score:2)
When dealing with barratry the best bet is to avoid the courts and go straight for the curb stomp.
Shysters defend their own. I think lawyers should be barred from holding public office.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that.
"Work Better" is arguably a combination of common words, it is not a name. If some glass window factory had happened to have registered "windows.com" before Microsoft did, MS would've had a really hard time claiming it's cybersquatting. Especially if said window factory would use it themselves and not offer the site for sale. Cybersquatting is usually defined as registering a domain with someone else's trademark as name, or the name of a celebrity or so, without the intention to seriously use it yourself and then trying to sell the domain to that person or company.
This is not someone registering say cocacola.com or pepsi.com, or even microsoft.com to stay with the previous example. That are clearly brand names and were at the time the Internet started well established names. It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.
Re:Morons ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.
This happened to a man in the 1990s, Mr. Nissan.
http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/... [nissan.com]
Re: (Score:2)
also happened to a Michael Rowe.
Silly kid settled for an XBox in exchange for the domain...
The renewal is the alleged cybersquatting (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?
Re: (Score:2)
No. They didn't even start using the phrase or trademark it until 2015. And it's not cybersquatting if there's no target buyer. So renewals don't even factor into it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not cybersquatting if there's no target buyer.
Right, it's "domain speculation" or whatever term those parasites want to use for their activities. You want to buy a domain name? Great. But instead of the $10 it would normally cost you, since I bought it 10 years ago and haven't used it since then I'm going to charge you $20,000. Now thank me for providing you with this service.
Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him and after it failed to acquire the domain name
It "tried to purchase"? What does that mean, they took their wallet out but a seagull swooped down and stole it? They were about to write the check when the pen exploded? T
Re: (Score:2)
He's providing a service- buying up generic phrases so that businesses are forced to actually use creativity and not use a boring name. Not a very profitable thing, since nobody should buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
businesses are forced to actually use creativity and not use a boring name
That's a lot to ask, my friend. It takes a lot less creativity to just sue someone I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand the plaintiff's argument, each renewal is a separate act of cybersquatting. Can anybody more familiar with anti-cybersquatting law clarify whether this is a valid argument?
Basically, no, since the laws deal with the intent of possessing the domain, so unless intent demonstrably changed from when it was first registered, this is just an attempt to shove a wedge into where the plaintiff thinks there may be a crack.
There are a few laws that can get involved, but the most important in the US is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [wikipedia.org].
I haven't read it, but it appears the act lays out some guidelines, and among some defenses are "Registrant’s prior use of the domain n
even if you win... (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble with lawsuits is that even if you win, you still lose.
Re:even if you win... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only winners are the lawyers.
Re:even if you win... (Score:4, Funny)
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Looks like a case of poor research (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark holder did a poor job researching his trademark and finds prior use in a domain name now attempts to abuse anti cyber squatting laws to grab domain.
This is one of those areas of tech law that will need to be ironed out in the future perhaps adding a domain name check to the TM check when registering a trademark.
I hope the law going forward dose not favor the trademark holder over prior use owner.
Re:Looks like a case of poor research (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just prior use of a domain name, but prior use of the trademark:
http://jdevadf.oracle.com/work... [oracle.com]
https://www.citrix.com/go/work... [citrix.com]
http://www.workbetterindia.com... [workbetterindia.com]
Re:Looks like a case of poor research (Score:5, Informative)
Well, here's the problem with that:
Trade Marks and Service Marks are only meaningful in the area of business. It is not exclusive across all possible kinds of business. That's not how they work.
You can't simply look up a domain name and check it against trademarks and decide who owns it. You and I can Trademark the same thing, and as long as you're making concrete and I'm making balloon animals, we can both keep it, because we're doing different things which won't reasonably be confused.
So, unless the original registrant is in the same kind of business as the assholes^Wplaintiff in this case, it simply doesn't matter.
I'm of the opinion the people suing don't have a leg to stand on. This guy had registered this domain a long time ago, and renewed it before this Service Mark was applied for.
Which means unless they're in the same area of business and the Service Mark/Trade Mark then trumps prior ownership ... the assholes^Wplaintiff hasn't for a leg to stand on.
Re:Looks like a case of poor research (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Looks like a case of poor research (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, that was why Apple Corps wanted Apple Computers to stay the hell out of the music industry.
When one entity starts to bleed into what another does, then it gets much more into lawyers and all sorts of stuff.
You'll notice that the resolution of this was Apple Computers bought Apple Corps and then licensed back the trademark [wikipedia.org].
Most entities don't have the luxury of splashing out $500 million to fix that kind of situation.
But my concrete and balloon animals example still holds.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it! I'm registering www.concreteballoonanimals.com right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar:
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.
No match for "CONCRETEBALLOONANIMALS.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:46:12 GMT <<<
Re: (Score:3)
Amateurs:
For more information on Whois status codes, please visit
https://www.icann.org/resource... [icann.org].
Domain Name: concreteballoonanimals.com
Registry Domain ID: 1943371105_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com/ [godaddy.com]
Update Date: 2015-06-30T16:36:25Z
Creation Date: 2015-06-30T16:36:25Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-06-30T16:36:25Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact
Re: (Score:2)
16:36:25Z
So you bought it? Have fun with it. It's your money.
Re: (Score:2)
That industry line was pretty clearly crossed when Apple (Computers) got into the iTunes business.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark holder did a poor job researching his trademark and finds prior use in a domain name now attempts to abuse anti cyber squatting laws to grab domain.
I would argue that they did. Unfortunately the current law and case law give favor to a trademark holder, in this case Office Space Solutions, to get control of a domain name. They saw a domain name\trademark that wasn't being used filed the trademark, used it a bit, offered to buy it, and then went after the domain name using the tools created to br
can he countersue? (Score:3)
can't the guy claim Office Space Solutions ripped him off?
i mean, i don't actually believe that, "Work Better" is not a difficult slogan to formulate
but when dealing with this kind of abusive litigation, i think it's fair to reply to this kind of crap with the same crap
"your honor, Office Space Solutions must have found my website and decided to steal my intellectual property" or some such nonsense
Sounds very much like (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sounds very much like (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds very much like Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer [wikipedia.org], where Nissan Motors tried to claim a domain registered before the Nissan name was commonly used (they were still naming cars Datsun at the time).
It should also be noted how Nissan Motors tried (and almost succeeded) in bankrupting Uzi Nissan. That is the reason why I did not even consider a Nissan in 2007 when I was shopping for a new car. I even made it a point of letting the dealer know that when they approached me as the Nissan dealership is in the same facility with other makes.
Note that I once had a turbo manual 280ZX with an independent rear suspension that I absolutely loved. There is no better way to alienate intelligent consumers than to tread on their morals, no matter how satisfied they may be with your company's products.
Monster (Score:3)
I, for one, shall never buy a Monster Cable product. And I think I am not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, shall never buy a Monster Cable product. And I think I am not the only one.
Yeah, but for me it's their poor value:price ratio, not their abhorrent business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan is owned by the French. Not getting a frog mobile is plenty of reason to avoid them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan is owned by the French.
I guess that explains why the Nissan dealership is shared with the Renault dealership. Do they use a common chassis, like Renault and Peugeot do?
Re: (Score:2)
I saw some Peugeot badged Z cars last time I was in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Uzi Nissan
Google Images fails to replicate the image that came to my mind with that name.
Think Mad Max.
I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough ... MOSSAD .. Cough
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough ... MOSSAD .. Cough
Actually the weapon called the Uzi is named after Uzi Gal, who invented it. It is a common enough name.
It is doing it the wrong way. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't lose a case there if you tried. And it is not reviewable or appealable to any court in the USA including the Supreme Court.
You think it is a parody from The Onion? It is what TPP does. Only foreign investors can sue the federal government seeking compensation for any change in the law or its implementation by any body (federal, state or local). They can demand compensation for not just actual losses, but for loss of hypothetical future profits their business plan assumed.
Instead these dim wits are appealing to US patent and trade mark office as a domestic investor. Such pointy haired bosses bring shame to all MBAs.
Re: (Score:2)
TPP hasn't passed yet.
Re: It is doing it the wrong way. (Score:2)
I see a profitlist coming (Score:2)
GoodJob! (Score:3)
GoodJob.com
WellDone.com
GetFucked.com
TastyAndDelicious.com
DoneRight.com
TheRightWay.com
SoftestInTheSouth.com
TheTasteOfTheSouth.com
BackOff.com
SleepWell.com
GimmeTen.com
PerfectlyCrisp.com
SlowDown.com
WeCare.com
MadeToOrder.com
FreshFromTheFarm.com
FreshIsBest.com
TuckMeInAtBedtime.com
EnjoyTheFood.com
HaveAGreatTime.com
OneStepAtATime.com
CrazyCats.com
ThePenIsMighty.com (err... maybe that can be read incorrectly)
SoftAndFluffy.com
EasyOnTheEyes.com
LitigateDontMitigate.com
I guess that any common phrase can be "claimed". Weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, it seems that at phrase can be trademarked!(C)(R)(TM)(TLDR)
Re: (Score:2)
I shall register:
Further, is seems that any phrase can be trademarked!(C)(R)(TM)(TLDR)
And sue you for your typo squatting!
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these sound like adult oriented entertainment sites such as Freshfromthefarm.
Make me an offer then...
Why is not itself a civil offense? (Score:3)
So if the plantiff can make "bad faith" claims about domain register renewal and seek to have the government impose sanctions why can't the defendant argue that the case itself is filed in bad faith seeking to separate the defendant from his righttful property? It's all about mens rea- or an intent to do evil , so isn't' using the court or police or prosecutor's office to induce people of good faith to achieve an evil result itself the much more serious crime?
Suppose the defendant is a domain name speculator? Is this kind of speculationi illegal now, an act of bad faith?
Suppose the defendant is a guy with a half baked dream involving his domain name, a dream which will never come true. Does he have to give up his dream because someone started a company and if so isn't this just more lawmaking to suit people with money?
Why is the litigant under no obligation to check on the state of domain names at the time he or she forms the company? If the domain name is taken and the seller isn't selling or an agreed upon price can't be struck, nthen find another name.
Re: (Score:3)
However as it looks to me (disclaimer, I'm not from the USA), the US justice system is taking everything literally and specifically. For example, just this week someone was complaining that there i
Re: (Score:3)
civil law isn't about intent, it's about findings of fact. Here's some:
Guy innocently buys a domain in 1999. Probably forgets he's put an auto-renew on it. Probably forgets, right there in the middle of the dotcom bubble, that he's even registered that one among dozens of others.
Company starts using a service mark THIS YEAR that bears a naming resemblance to the dotcom domain.
Company attempts to acquire the domain, is rebuffed.
Company gets pissy, goes right in with both barrels loaded with lawyers.
Really, t
Re: (Score:3)
LOL ... OK, so obviously I'm no lawyer ...
But isn't the defense against that simply that the plaintiff is a self-confessed, shamelessly self-entitled douchebag who was acting in good faith as a clueless idiot who believed his huge ego entitled him to the domain?
Now, I'm not saying the plaintiff is, or is not,
Sounds Like A Scumbag Company (Score:5, Interesting)
Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.
Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:
1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.
2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)
Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.
Re: (Score:2)
"apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization."
That's the basis for *one* of his countersuits.
I've been involved in similar situations, where a corporation tried to transfer a domain name, got caught, made an offer to purchase, and simultaneously sued for infringement. In one case the complainant settled for a fair purchase price with the previous owner, my service client at the time, and they got enough time to make a transition. In the other, my client actua
Re:Sounds Like A Scumbag Company (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Kneen's web site, http://www.jasonified.com/doma... [jasonified.com], workbetter.com is for sale. He currently has it redirecting to his primary domain name, www.jasonified.com. After looking at the list of domains he owns, including many that are Twitter related, he looks a lot like a cybersquatter.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was on the jury, I'd side with the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people consider that 'farsighted''.
Re: (Score:2)
I would mod you up If I could. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about this not being a big deal. At this point it's just between two parties who both want to make money off a domain.
I don't know a whole lot about the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", but according to Wikipedia:
In determining whether the domain name registrant has a bad faith intent to profit, a court may consider many factors, including nine that are outlined in the statute:
1 Registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name;
2 Whether the domain name contains the registrant’s legal or common name;
3 Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services;
4 Registrant’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible by the domain name;
5 Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark;
6 Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site;
7 Registrant’s providing misleading false contact information when applying for registration of the domain name;
8 Registrant’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others; and
9 Extent to which the mark in the domain is distinctive or famous.[11]
Point by point...
1) Kneen has no relevant trademark as far as I know
2) The domain does not relate to his name
3) Kneen has not apparently used the domain commercially
4) The domain is not in use currently other than a redirect to his primary web site
5) I see no rea
Let's look at the situation again here (Score:2)
OSS tries to buy the domain that a guy first registered fifteen years ago, fails.
OSS tries to sue the domain owner over a trademark it didn't start using until THIS YEAR.
The fuck? OSS are trying it on. This shit should be tossed with prejudice and costs awarded to the respondent.
(I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice).
A Judge with any sense should see though this. (Score:2)
If Mr Kneen can prove this in court then Office Space Solutions' case won't last long. It proves they are the ones guilty of bad faith.
Furthermore, if the claim that Office Space Solutions tried to perform an unauthorized transfer of the domain is true and can be proven in court, then surely that would be criminal fraud.
It sounds as if Office Space Solutions are hoping that Mr Kneen would see the lawsuit filing and just hand over th
Not a squatter? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a link to the list of over 100 domain names Jason Kneen has for sale on his website: Domains [jasonified.com].
The one's I've checked are either inactive or pretty generic (some camera-related links at digitalfreak.co.uk, "parked by GoDaddy" at edit-anywhere.com, and a default WordPress page at foryourpocket.com), except workbetter.com, which redirects to his website. Coincidence?
The guy is a squatter (Score:2)
This is textbook cy
Re:The guy is a squatter (Score:5, Insightful)
This is textbook cybersquatting. He bought a whole bunch on speculation hoping to get rich quick, and now wants to cash in his lottery ticket. It's a little too late for him to claim he has a legitimate business use for it.
Thing is he bought generic domain names, and has a right to own them. He's had it for 15 years. They're claiming that's just fine, and that he could sell it to them, but didn't; then, when it expired and he renewed, they claimed he doesn't have the right to RETAIN his property (we treat domains as property, because we consider the purchase of lease as ownership, not licensing: YOU CAN SELL YOUR DOMAINS TO OTHER PEOPLE).
In effect, if you own a domain, and another company thinks they have a claim to it that does not predate your ownership, all they have to do is wait for renewal. When it comes time for your domain to expire, renewing it is treated as buying it new. If you owned Windows.com 5 years before Microsoft made Windows, Microsoft couldn't do shit; if you renewed it when it expired 8 years later, Microsoft could treat you exactly like you just registered Windows.com that day, claiming you maliciously started infringing on their trademark, even if you weren't infringing before due to prior ownership. Renewal is new ownership.
It's a bullshit approach. The plaintiff is suing because they've come up with a name, found someone else owns the name, and don't want to buy the property.
Re: (Score:2)
So defining cybersquatting as owning domain names that you don't use is ok?
What about domains you have sites up for, though no one visits them? Or domains that you even maintain sites for, but no one visits?
How about very few visits, of family and friends?
You don't want to go down that road, or contested domain names will go to the 'best use', inevitably being whoever or whatever can get the most 'value'. Or has some claim that is unenforceable otherwise. Or tells a better story.
Nope.
16 years before what? (Score:2)
Slashdot, stop jamming your graphics over the subject line assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Happened to me! (Score:2)
I just came out with a GoT RPG board game having to do with the many face god. I wanted to promoted using the domain facebook.com, but some guy named Zuckerberg totally cybersquatted the name.
Office Space Solutions (Score:3)
Ummm, yeah, Peter, we are going to have to have you look for a better company name.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet effing Lumbergh is behind the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
I was getting really disappointed in slashdot that nobody noticed this until I got to your post. Better late than never, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
"It's never too late to procrastinate." - Unknown
Re: (Score:2)
Once they are appointed, they rarely care who backed their ascension to the bench. Unless the judge is a Democrat, they never forget.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the corporation. The Democrats are after all the party of Hollywood and Wall Street.