




JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name 321
Malfourmed writes "Reuters reports that the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien won a cybersquatting case against Alberta Hot Rods, a Canadian-based operator which registered jrrtolkien.com and linked it to its commercial celebrity Web site. The group - which has already lost domain name cases brought by actors Pierce Brosnan and Pamela Anderson, and author Michael Crichton - was found to have no legitimate rights, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) said in a ruling."
First bad joke post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First bad joke post (Score:5, Funny)
they got what they wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
all is well
Re:they got what they wanted (Score:5, Funny)
Internet Papparazzi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Internet Papparazzi (Score:4, Informative)
Rather than upsetting the applecart (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that such a rule would have been nice from day one, it does have its problems.
1) trademarks are not unique
a) they are limited by "domain" (e.g. Macintosh(tm) for apples can exist in parallel with Macintosh(tm) for computers)
b) they are limited by geography (e.g. in the US, I can own "SourceMagic"(tm) in Illinois, while in Wisconsin someone else may have the same trademark for the same "domain", and national trademarks for x in Germany can be owned by one company, and a completely different company may have the same exact trademark registered in Canada or the United States).
This works for national domains, such as co.uk, where (a) there aren't state or local trademarks, only national trademarks (or they only allow national trademarks to use the domain), but it won't work for most trademarks in an international domain such as
Now, if one wanted to make a
Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart (Score:3, Insightful)
Couple of notes:
There is an international regime for trademarks (Madrid Protocol) and an European regime (Community trademarks under a regulation). You register the trademark in one country and protection is extended to any that you want
Re:Internet Papparazzi (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why went I want to find something on the net I type it into google, rather than adding .com and typing it into my URL bar. google will tell me where the real site or sites are about what I want. For example, google will tell me that I can read about the Matrix (assuming I still want to read about the Matrix) at www.whatisthematrix.com rather than www.matrix.com (which will allow me to "Get Expert Personalized Hair Advice").
Honestly, are there still people out there who just add .com and type thi
Re:Internet Papparazzi (Score:3, Funny)
Re:they got what they wanted (Score:2)
Re:they got what they wanted (Score:4, Insightful)
The gold rush is over (Score:5, Interesting)
Choo Choo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The really original homesteaders were forced off their lands by white people with guns, marched en masse to reservations, given smallpox-ridden blankets, and starved into oblivion.
We are now fully off-topic...
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:3, Insightful)
So what would be the web form of the small pox blankets? MS ________(Insert product name here).
Cybersquatting is little different than tradmark theft. A company or individual that has worked for their recognition and reputation deserves the fruits of their labor.
There should be no need for litigation. There must be some way to mediate domain name disputes without lining the pockets of a lawfirm. Even if that were impractical, it could still be resolved in
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Funny)
If said homesteaders (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to get it through their thick skulls that trying to profit off of other people's names is not acceptible.
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
Ben
Re:If said homesteaders (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If said homesteaders (Score:5, Funny)
No no, you have it all wrong. Brewers brew... it's tailors that sew. In rare cases of sewing involving wool and people's eyes, you will find that lawyers might be involved as well.
Another example (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another example (Score:3, Informative)
Poor guy. He really got shafted. Guess which Japanese auto maker will have a zero percent chance of selling me my next car?
Re:If said homesteaders (Score:3, Informative)
Hasbro, Clue, and Candyland interesting too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hasbro sued Clue Computing [google.com] and apparently lost, and in a pretty similar case (IMHO)
Hasbro sued Candyland.com [google.com] and apparently won.
Candyland and Clue are both "popular" Hasbro games. Clue and Candyland were both small companies (not hard to guess the industries). Can anyone explain the differences in these cases to me, besides the obvious (and hopefully irrelevant legally)?
Re:A what if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, older johnny had the name before younger famous johhny...right?
I mean, couldn't these sued-squatters at least have bought a fish, named him j.r.r and claimed the website was about their sea creature? would that have been all they needed to retain rights? or would they have needed a dog? perhaps a little boy?
I ask, because I know for a fact that there is another celine dion out there, and in my opinion she has just as much right to celinedion.com as the famous one who successfully sued for it (but has not the money as the vegas-diva name-counterpart).
heck, isn't there another j.r.r tolkien out there with rights to this domain? are any of the hiers even named j.r.r or John Ronald Reuel Tolkien for that matter ?....well, actually probably not...actually, there is probably never going to be anyone named that again (considering the google search of ""John Ronald Reuel" -tolkien -tolkin -tolkein"" still yielded hobbit-rich results).....
ah, the shackles of the internet are starting to leave marks.....
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Informative)
And before you go all, "that's not fair!", just remember that the differences in rights of public figures aren't *always* (although frequently they are, I will grant you) in their favor.
For instance, in most states if I photograph or videotape you I can't use your image for personal financial gain (like, say, showing you on my reality TV show) without your permission, in most cases. But in the case of public figures, such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians, I most certainly can, as long as I'm telling the truth and as long as I'm being fair. Their image is recognized as having a symbolic value to the public over and above the value it has to that individual. This is why paparazzi can do what they do.
However, because these individuals are public figures, they own a piece of property that has value to them as well: their name. You can't call something Celine Dion Ice Cream, not unless the Celine Dion whose name is most likely meant to be used as a selling point gives her permission. It doesn't matter that there's another Celine Dion out there. Unless your other Celine Dion has established that her name has equal value in advertising or commerce, well, then the famous Celine trumps her because it's the famous Celine's name that is logically being used to pump the value of the ice cream, or what have you.
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine you knew how homsteadering actually worked... It *wasn't* squatting, but a legal process. The homesteader had to lay formal claim to the land, and demonstrate that he could work and improve the land. Skip or screw up either step, and you los
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)
So all corporate entities are evil then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)
And naturally, as a Big Evil Company now, they're not entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Now, if we were talking about a domain that had a generic name, like onering.com, I might buy the argument. But jrrtolkien.com is extremely specific.
What about that guy who was able to pick up hotmail.co.uk because Microsoft forgot to renew it? I say he should be under no obligation to return it.Explain your logic to me. What other use would someone want with a domain called hotmail except to screw MS? Or is this one of those "anything that screws MS is good" things? Note this is NOT the same as creating a domain called hotmailsucks.com or screw.this.hotmail.crap.com. Those are very obvious alternate uses of the hotmail name and I would agree in that case that they should not be taken away. To use a more relevant example, if the domain we're talking about was jrrtolkiensucks.com, then I'd lean towards the owner of the domain. But there is no reason to hold jrrtolkien.com except to 1) screw over the Tolkien estate and/or 2) lure people to your site making them think they were going someplace that actually had something to do with the author.
Same with guys who register celebrity names as domains. If it was important to the celebrity they should have something in place to protect the domains.I would agree if the site was not EXACTLY the same name as the celebrity. If it were, for example, fansof[celebrity-name].org, then I'd say okay.
I don't care for frivilous cases of strong-arming domain names from people. At the same time, however, the rules, whether they be actual laws or just plain ettiquete, should be equal for all. Registering other people's trademarks and names as domain names (and I do mean names that are clearly distinctive trademarks and not common names that just happen to be parts of trademarks), in my mind, is breaking the rules.
Good Riddance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:2)
A good ol' slashdotting to make them pay out the nose for the bandwidth charges their ISP will hit them up for, for starters...
Not famous yet (Score:5, Funny)
So all I need to do now is become famous, and that domain is mine!
Re:Not famous yet (Score:2)
"was found to have no legitimate right"
What happend if the person who registered the domain later change name is anybodies guess
Re:Not famous yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not famous yet (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Mike Rowsoft
Neat. (Score:4, Funny)
The domains of commerce (Score:2)
Re:The domains of commerce (Score:2, Informative)
That's what we do here with
Re:The domains of commerce (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly no longer true: AU domain policies [auda.org.au]
The registering organisation must be a company, within a *very* loose definition - for example owning a registered trade mark qualifies you. The domain name must then either be derived from your organisation name (in a couple of obvious ways) *OR*:
And this is interesting because...? (Score:2, Interesting)
As an other example, I love computers and I really dig Buffy, but I really don't care to know what CPU Sarah Michelle Gellar is writing her email with.
Would this have been news if it were www.pamelaanderson.com that got overruled?
Re:And this is interesting because...? (Score:2)
You're just jealous because you missed out on owning sarahmichellegellarscpu.com, the original source for uncensored celeb pics of Buffy's CPU!
Re:And this is interesting because...? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the cybersquatting that made it interesting, but the decision to turn the domain over to the Tolkien estate.
I have mixed feelings about this... I hate cybersquatters as much as the next guy, but what if some corporation decides it has more right to my domain name than I do, and asks the courts to give the domain to them?
Re:And this is interesting because...? (Score:2)
Unless... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unless... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unless... (Score:2)
Sides of a Coin (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine people running around in a virgin country, sticking up signs every thirty miles or so at random, saying "this is my land." Should they be able to collect on it all, if those signs are the only claim they have?
Conversely, if they grab a spot of land, homestead it, and live on it, then it's pretty clear that they should be able to keep it. Even just living in a tent on unimproved land is a valid claim.
This is, potentially at least, the first case. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it all.
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know. Do they have a flag?
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:2)
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:2)
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:3, Informative)
In the web case it seems it was just forwarding on to some other site. You would hardly say that the site was developed.
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:4, Interesting)
I buy low, sell high.
As long as the person sticking signs in the groung is also paying the approprite registration title fees, taxes, and abied the rules and laws of property ownership, than more power to them.
The guy got raped, pure and simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
Infact, just like real life, the value of the land increases the more people want it. If you want a piece of land on the beach in California, you can expect to pay big bucks for it because it's prime location. Guess what? JRRTokkien.com is prime real estate and thus the owner of that domain should get just compensation, if not exactly the price he asks for it. This guy had the foresight to pay $50 for the domain (or whatever) and now it's worth $5 million. He was in the right place at the right time with the right idea before shit became popular. Had the internet lost steam, his $50 could have been wasted. Would the Tokkien franchise have compensated him for that since they now have such a dire attachment to it?
Sorry, but this guy got shafted hard. He bought the land and wisely positioned himself for a trend that should have paid out huge. The Tokkien estate, however, missed the boat. People miss the boat every day and are told tough shit for better reasons than this. I don't care how many books the dead guy wrote Tokkien Hill, the squater should be paid the value of the property as it stands today, just like any other much sought after piece of land. He was there first, legally.
The only exception I would make to this is using the domain to slander somebody else of the same name. Anything else is pure BS.
Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:2)
Running around collecting free or cheap items and hording them to ransom off is simple greed. Remember the company that bought up all those vaccenes a while ago so they could crank up the price and most small hospitals couldn't afford them?
Calling it a valid comercial enterprise and "just the way the free market works to maximize the value of a product" does not make it morally right. Just because something you are doing involved money does NOT mean you can throw morality out the win
Hold on a tic... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can anyone who's making money off their dead relatives make a case for the name? Seems to me that neither of the parties actually suing for or using the name actually *wrote* LoTR...
Just an alternative opinion...
Pixie
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:2, Interesting)
They are. Specifically, squatting a porn site on a domain name that can be misleading (e.g. whitehouse.com) was made illegal with the federal Amber Alert law last year.
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would it have made a difference to you then, if there had been a LoTR fan site at jrrtolkien.com?
If I google on tolkien, I do not find celebrity1000.com in the top 200 entries returned, so I really fail to see how they could possibly could interfere in anybody's search for anything...
Alberta Hot Rods is getting better publicity by having you all surf to the site in outrage, increasing their hit count by a bzillion times, than they probably ever EVER had by the few people who type "jrrtolkien.com" into their browser on a whim...
Don't feel bad though - lots of people have trouble finding porn on the internet, I understand your dilemma...
*grin*
Pixie
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:2)
I imagine most people who made a living as writer would feel the same way.
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:4, Informative)
There is something called The Right of Publicity. In short, it is the right for a person to keep his identity from being exploited for commercial gain without his permission. This protection can last beyond death, but varies by state.
At last, someone who knows... (Score:3, Interesting)
I checked PubLaw [publaw.com] for a definition of the Right of Publicity, which also mentions the Right of Privacy, which "protects an individual from the emotional anguish resulting from the publication of private facts that are embarrassing, intimate or portray someone in a false light that is highly offensive" -- originally, I was thinking more of the latter as being not really so important for dead guys (-:
Thanks again for setting me on the right trail.
Pixie
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:3, Funny)
That'd teach em...
Pixie
Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:2)
Fairness in Advertising? Hahahaha... (Score:4, Informative)
If you want truth in advertising, then the biggest, best-known company or individual using a given name should really just be given the name, right? Why even bother registering? We could just go by annual income...
Really, what difference is it in confusion between going to jrrtolkien.com and seeing ads, than it is to go to tolkien.com and see nothing, because that's what happens, when you try it. This is why we have google...
Pixie
Makes sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Of course, If I ran things the LOTR would have become public domain by now.
Depends (Score:3, Interesting)
So let's say my name is John Cisco, and I register cisco.com before Cisco Systems gets a chance. Now on this page, all I have is a "This domain for sale" with millions of popups. In this case I'm probably going to loose it. I mean it's pretty clear that my last name is incidental, I
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Can no one born these days have the same name as someone "famous"
Too restrictive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too restrictive? (Score:2)
As a Tolkien fan I believe... (Score:4, Funny)
it's what you do with the domain that counts (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine actually had the domain AMERICAONLINE.COM for many years. He offered to sell it to AOL and they blew him off and expressed no interest. His problem was the domain was not in use and when he decided to put up a web page, it said, "This domain for sale". Within days of the site going up, he received a threatening letter from AOL's lawyers. I am not sure, but I think they scared him into giving them the domain. He screwed up by not having a legitimate web site that wasn't exploitive of AOL then he might have had a case to fight. But in this circumstance the guy basically snatched the name because it was available, so he was trying to take advantage of AOL's famous name. If he had a web site on that domain for example, that was a messageboard for "American's online" or something not exploitive of AOL's identity, he probably could have fought off AOL, or at least forced them to settle with him.
Generally speaking, the law has been pretty reasonable in dealing with these cases. There are probably exceptions though.
Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts (Score:2)
What, like "African Americans On-Line"?
Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts (Score:2)
http://www.kentlaw.edu/legalaspects/panavision_ d om ain.html
If you're clearly out to damage someone's ability to use their own trademark, you are cybersquatting. The defendant in the case had a "legitamate" use for the domain; he had a site with aerial views of Pana, Illinois. But on further examination, it became clear that his intention was to spoil the domain name for Panavision and then selling it back to them.
Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts (Score:2)
That's a very iffy example, because it depends on a very unusual spelling for 'Jimmy'.
It's STILL not in use (Score:2, Interesting)
Quick, let him know... now's his chance to get them for not having a legitimate web site!
Common sense finally wins! (Score:2)
WIPO? (Score:2)
Re:WIPO? (Score:3, Informative)
Cutting and pasting:
What's the issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
This line does not imply to me that Harper Collins has exclusive rights to anything and everything with the tag of "J.R.R. Tolkien." It states that Harper Collins has rights to various forms of media and merchandise related to John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892-1973). They can not hold rights to the name, as anyone
Great news, now can we get the snipers? (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say.... (Score:3, Informative)
...and Rob & Jeff invented the slash and the d (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone yanked 'mcdonalds.com' and was using it to slander mcdonalds, sue them for libel, but they have the right to rent that domain for as long as they pay for it. This babysitting by the courts for corporate welfare is just over the line. I don't know why I'm so outraged by the very idea of this, but I am.
Spike Lee and Spike TV (Score:3, Interesting)
Proper noun (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO: We own all you source code!
Slashdotters: How so? We wrote it!
SCO: We just do!
Compared to:
JRR Tolkien Estates: We own that domain!
Sqautter: How so? I bought it!
Estates: We just do!
Although squatting is sleazy, I don't see why it's illegal. If there are magic reserved names that the general public can't buy then don't sell them in the first place. The guy bought it before JRR Tolkien estates, and made no reference to JRR Tolkien or LoTR so no trademark infringement occured. For all they know he could have thought it sounded like a l337 name for a porn site. So the lesson learned is that corporations have control over you no matter where you live, thanks to the U.N. and WIPO. It's just another example of a company saying they own something that they don't.
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is one problem with this argument. JRR Tolkien is a registered trademark of the Tolkien estate. Therefore, JRRTolkien.com is in violation of that trademark.
There actually are "magic reserved names", those n
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try this for example.
SCO: We own all you source code!
Slashdotters: How so? We wrote it!
SCO: We just do!
Compared to:
Squatter: I own that domain!
JRR Tolkien Estates: Why should you? You chose the name of the domain specifically because it is the name of the author whom we represent. You are seeking to profit from the fame of his name which he gained through writing some amazing works of literature, the site which
"Alberta Hot Rods" still available (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you register a domain, you own it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you and have a nice day.