Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Media Movies The Internet Your Rights Online

JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name 321

Posted by timothy from the there-never-was-much-hope dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name More

JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name

Comments Filter:

  • First bad joke post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:20AM (#7970228)
    So now he'll have "one webring to rule them all --" oh forget it.

  • they got what they wanted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:20AM (#7970234)
    you know everyone just clicked onto jrrtolkien.com and saw all their ads. the company is making their money back.

    all is well

    • Re:they got what they wanted (Score:5, Funny)

      by cgranade ( 702534 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .edanargc.> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:24AM (#7970270) Homepage Journal
      Unless we are so evil as to not click the ads, in which case we just /.ed not only jrrtolkien.com, but also their crummy adservers.

    • Internet Papparazzi (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SUJovian ( 662632 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:36AM (#7970361) Homepage
      This company brands itself "Celebrity 1000" and sadly, they and many others like them are cybersquatting on at least that many celebrity named domains. just try a few of your favorite celebrities. I'm not sure how this was ever legal to start with, and can't believe that to date this is only the 4th case brought against these fools. They're the papparazzi of the internet, making free money off the endeavors of others.

      • Re:Internet Papparazzi (Score:4, Informative)

        by Trejkaz ( 615352 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:50AM (#7971239) Homepage
        It was allowed because the global .com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as .com.au.

      • Re:Internet Papparazzi (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jdavidb ( 449077 )

        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

    • Some of us are running ad blocking software.

    • Re:they got what they wanted (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:22AM (#7971136)
      The dumb thing is that they don't even have a token page about Tolkien to justify taking browsers there. If they'd bothered to crib together a page of bio and a dozen links they might have had a chance in court.

  • The gold rush is over (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:21AM (#7970240) Homepage Journal
    Imagine if homesteaders had their land taken away back in the 1800's by corporations who claimed that they actually had rights to the land, even though the corps never set foot on the land and had no interest in it until they saw how profitable the land was.

    • Choo Choo (Score:4, Insightful)

      by puppet10 ( 84610 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:23AM (#7970257)
      You mean the railroad is coming to town?

    • Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LouisZepher ( 643097 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:23AM (#7970263)
      Well, the original homesteaders had it taken away by people who eventually became said corporations. This is just Manifest Destiny in web form.

      • Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Theatetus ( 521747 ) *

        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...

        • Uhm...DUH! That's what I meant! If ya really wanna get off-topic, could we use the smallpox-riddled blankets as a reason for the UN to send inspectors to the US, as it does have a history of using biological weapons against innocent people that were merely uprising against their oppresors?

      • Re:The gold rush is over (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PaulK ( 85154 )
        This is just Manifest Destiny in web form.
        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)

      by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:29AM (#7970305)
      Imagine if someone was renting all the land on the planet for twenty bucks for two years and porn companies rented all the usable farmland and then linked it all to one spot in Arizona with nothing on it but advertisements for porn that no matter how many sites you click through, you never find any any actual naked chicks, dammit.

    • If said homesteaders (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:38AM (#7970377) Homepage
      bought the land with the intent to profit off of the name of the corporation then yes, I'd expect as much.

      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
      • What about the reverse? I recall a few years ago, a family named Miller had the domain for "MillerTime". The brewers sewed, and last I knew won. (I would provide a link, but it's been so long, I've lost where the the hell I found the story.) That was an example of the reverse, a company that didn't call "shotgun" on DotCom bandwagon and wanted to profit off of something someone else did first. Said family was using said domain for "Family Site" shit, and wasn't profiting off the name, there was little r

        • Re:If said homesteaders (Score:5, Funny)

          by Hamstaus ( 586402 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:27AM (#7970671) Homepage
          The brewers sewed,

          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)

          by Safety Cap ( 253500 )
          Nissan (the car company) sued Uzi Nissan (a technology company owner) to get his website [nissan.com]. They [car corp] "lost [ncchelp.org]" in the sense that they didn't get the domain name, but they convinced the court to totally neuter it: it cannot host any commercial content, nor can it link to any site that hosts commercial content.

          • Re:Another example (Score:3, Informative)

            by gujo-odori ( 473191 )
            I remember that case, and I'm sad to see how it turned out. The court sure goatsed him. The commercial use to which he was previously putting that domain name was his small business, a computer shop, IIRC. Nothing whatsoever to do with cars, and he'd been in business for years under his name, since the days when Nissan still called itself Datsun in North America.

            Poor guy. He really got shafted. Guess which Japanese auto maker will have a zero percent chance of selling me my next car?

        • What about the reverse? I recall a few years ago, a family named Miller had the domain for "MillerTime". The brewers sewed, and last I knew won. (I would provide a link, but it's been so long, I've lost where the the hell I found the story.) That was an example of the reverse, a company that didn't call "shotgun" on DotCom bandwagon and wanted to profit off of something someone else did first. Said family was using said domain for "Family Site" shit, and wasn't profiting off the name, there was little reas

    • Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:02AM (#7970543) Journal
      I always wondered, why can't someone older than, but with the same name as, johnny depp claim intellectual property rights to www.johnnydepp.com ?

      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)..... ......but you see my point!

      ah, the shackles of the internet are starting to leave marks.....

      • Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Funny)

        by cweagle ( 11128 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:51AM (#7970808) Homepage
        "Why should I change my name - he's the one that sucks!" - Michael Bolton

      • Re:The gold rush is over (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chromodromic ( 668389 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @03:35AM (#7971182)
        The law recognizes certain individuals as "public figures" with a set of rights that are separate from normal individuals.

        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.

    • Imagine if homesteaders had their land taken away back in the 1800's by corporations who claimed that they actually had rights to the land, even though the corps never set foot on the land and had no interest in it until they saw how profitable the land was.

      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

  • Good Riddance (Score:2, Interesting)

    by svvampy ( 576225 )
    Can't we just kick these cretins off the net? What sort of punitive action can the international community take against organisations such as this.
    • Can't we just kick these cretins off the net? What sort of punitive action can the international community take against organisations such as this.

      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)

    by rm -rf $HOME ( 738703 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:22AM (#7970252)
    I have a relatively uncommon first-name, but one of the few people who shares it registered it as a domain name relatively early in the history of the web. If I were to become famous, I'd almost certainly be known by first-name alone, as there are only a small handful of entertainers with this name, and none of them are "stars".

    So all I need to do now is become famous, and that domain is mine!

  • Neat. (Score:4, Funny)

    by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:24AM (#7970265)
    Wow. The law actually worked and wasn't evil or nothing for once. Good on them.
  • should be restricted to .com domains. That's what the TLD was supposed to mean. Any other TLD should be first-come, first-served.
    • should be restricted to .com domains. That's what the TLD was supposed to mean. Any other TLD should be first-come, first-served

      That's what we do here with .com.au domains. You must have a registered business name that your selected domain name can be derived from. Of course, there were many people who thought that was too restrictive. In particular, the moron who writes for The Age [theage.com.au] and wanted property.com.au for a side venture of his. He gave Melbourne IT [melbourneit.com.au] flack at every turn for not giving that dom
      • That's what we do here with .com.au domains. You must have a registered business name that your selected domain name can be derived from.

        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*:

        c) be otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant, because t

  • Ya know, I love Tolkien's work and I like to keep informed of domain squatting issues, but how is an article about domain squatting of Tolkien's name supposed to interest me?

    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?
    • 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.

      You're just jealous because you missed out on owning sarahmichellegellarscpu.com, the original source for uncensored celeb pics of Buffy's CPU!

    • Ya know, I love Tolkien's work and I like to keep informed of domain squatting issues, but how is an article about domain squatting of Tolkien's name supposed to interest me?

      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?

  • Unless... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ath0mic ( 519762 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:27AM (#7970298)
    www.celebrity1000.com [celebrity1000.com] contains nude pics of JRR Tolkien I think they are out of luck :p

  • Sides of a Coin (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:31AM (#7970322) Homepage
    You know, there are two sides to this coin. There's the side from the 'squatter where they see the land, they grab it, and they hold on to it. They do this from their own pocket, hoping to make some money selling the land to whoever wants it at a later date. There's the side from the person that desires such land, sometimes for reasons of their trademark, or their name. This is where the 'squatter tries to get them to pay large amounts of money for the domain. Now, the 'squatter probably should get SOME money back from their initiative (cost, maybe?) but not be allowed to extort millions from whoever wants the website. Although I admit that the land analogy is flawed..I would have more respect for the 'squatter if they actually were trying to get a fair deal out of it, instead of, "Give us $1,000,000,000, or we'll pwn u, n00b!"

    • Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:4, Interesting)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:35AM (#7970352) Journal
      You're right, but the question is, at what point does squatting lose its legitimacy?

      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.
      • 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?

        I don't know. Do they have a flag?
      • What if instead of signs they paid a company $15/yr. for the right to use that land in the future, if they so chose? They wouldn't go gobbling up land unless they thought it would be worth something. $15 isn't a lot of money, but that depends on how many parcels of land you're buying. You don't see many people registering aabbcc112233.com. There's no reason to. The fact that they paid $15 to reserve the name proves they had an interest in the "property".

      • Re:Sides of a Coin (Score:3, Informative)

        by Snoopy77 ( 229731 )
        I believe that at least in old English law you actually had to work the land and fence it.

        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)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:02AM (#7970849) Homepage Journal
        If I see a piece of land I know McDonalds is gong to want, I'll buy it, then charge more to McDonalds when they show up.

        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)

        by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:18AM (#7970919) Homepage Journal
        The difference between this guy and people sticking "I pwn this!" signs every thirty miles in virgin country is that this guy actually paid- through legal process -the deed for this land. Let's say that land had a famous hill named Tokkien Hill (JRRTokkien wrote his books up there on warm summer nights, ok?). That, by no means gives the Tokkien Estate the right to kick you off and set up a printing shop in their namesake no matter what you are doing with the land, ESPECIALLY after being duly and legally appointed the land.

        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.
    • I entirely disagree.

      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)

    by sillypixie ( 696077 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:32AM (#7970330) Journal
    I hate to be unpopular, but the guy is dead, right? Does he really have the same rights to his name as somebody who is alive?

    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)

      by Drakon ( 414580 ) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:39AM (#7970396) Journal
      People who are looking for porn know where to look. Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed. If not because they make it harder to find things that should be on those domains, then because they make it harder to find porn. ;-)

      • Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bckrispi ( 725257 )
        Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed.

        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)

        by sillypixie ( 696077 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:08AM (#7970589) Journal
        Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed
        I suppose, but when I go looking for porn, I do not necessarily immediately type "porn.com" into the address box of my browser...

        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

    • If I was famous, I'd like to be able to pass on my marketability to my loved ones. That includes copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.

      I imagine most people who made a living as writer would feel the same way.

    • Re:Hold on a tic... (Score:4, Informative)

      by raytracer ( 51035 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:57AM (#7970835)
      I hate to be unpopular, but the guy is dead, right? Does he really have the same rights to his name as somebody who is alive?

      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.

      • Aha, that was exactly what I needed to know...

        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

  • Makes sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:34AM (#7970340) Homepage Journal
    The ruling makes sense to me. "J.R.R. Tolkien" isn't a trademark per se, but it is a (very particular) pronoun, so its use as a domain name should be reserved for the Tolkien Estate, not some random cyber-squatter. Infringing trademarks in registering domain names is an obvious no-no ... but I wonder, suppose there actually was someone named J.R.R. Tolkien, and he registered this domain? Would he still have a legitimate right to the domain, or would the domain be taken away from him, even though it was his name?!
    • No. First come first serve.

      Of course, If I ran things the LOTR would have become public domain by now.

    • Depends (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      Primarly on how good a lawyer he gets but also on what he's doing with it. If you are using the domain for a legitimate purpose, not related to capatalising on the trademerk, you have a much better chance of getting to keep it.

      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

  • Too restrictive? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:34AM (#7970342)
    I can write a book about Tolkien and title it "The Life of Tolkien". Why shouldn't I be able to get a domain name with his name, as long as I state I'm not he (or his heirs)? Businesses I understand - trademarks, etc. Maybe there should be a top level domain for "unofficial", so you'd have jrrtolkien.official and jrrtolkien.unofficial. A litter cumbersome but you get the point.

  • As a Tolkien fan I believe... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:41AM (#7970409)
    As a Tolkien fan I believe that the domain name should be cast into the fiery pit at Mt. Doom, so that it may never again be used to trouble the world.

  • it's what you do with the domain that counts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @12:44AM (#7970433)
    The key here is how you use the domain name. IF your use is non-exploitive of the entity, specifically if it's someone famous, you can potentially hold it. I.e. If someone named James Hendrix had his personal web page on jimihendrix.com, he'd have a good case to fend off the Hendrix estate, as opposed to pointing the domain to some site clearly attempting to capitalize on the famous Jimi Hendrix.

    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.
    • 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.


      What, like "African Americans On-Line"? :/

    • I think you have to do more than that. You might want to check out the Panavision case.

      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.

    • The key here is how you use the domain name. IF your use is non-exploitive of the entity, specifically if it's someone famous, you can potentially hold it. I.e. If someone named James Hendrix had his personal web page on jimihendrix.com, he'd have a good case to fend off the Hendrix estate, as opposed to pointing the domain to some site clearly attempting to capitalize on the famous Jimi Hendrix.

      That's a very iffy example, because it depends on a very unusual spelling for 'Jimmy'.

    • Really. Go look! [americaonline.com]

      Quick, let him know... now's his chance to get them for not having a legitimate web site!
  • Nowif only we could find a way to introduce SCO to the WIPO.
  • I'm curious. Could anybody please clear up what it is gives WIPO the authority to decide upon cybersquatting issues? Is it a voluntary thing or is it somehow required by law?

    • Re:WIPO? (Score:3, Informative)

      by nilenico ( 688350 )
      Check out WIPO [wipo.org].

      Cutting and pasting:

      The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.

      With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, W

  • What's the issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Zebbie ( 706596 )
    From the Reuters article:

    Tolkien's estate has given publishers Harper Collins exclusive license over the sale of books, audio tapes and other merchandise related to the late Oxford academic.

    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

  • I mean there are other groups out there that just wait for a domain name in use to become available by over looking the date, sometime easy to do. Just one day can mean a company will come in swoop you domain name, and then offer to sell it back to you at a %1000 increase for "maintanence and transfering" fees.

  • Let me be the first to say.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:42AM (#7970756)
    Let me be the first to say, that the WIPO sucks ass. The company I'm with had their domain taken away despite having a good claim to it because we couldn't afford to send a lawyer to Geneva to argue our case.
  • I don't agree with the whining people who moan because of cybersquatters. Those that put into common use the // in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper. I, personally, think it's a 'first-come, first-serve' situation.

    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.

    /opinion

  • Spike Lee and Spike TV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by btakita ( 620031 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @01:48AM (#7970789) Homepage
    This is kindof like Spike Lee suing Spike TV because it uses "his" name.

  • Proper noun (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Omni Magnus ( 645067 )
    The ruling makes sense to me. "J.R.R. Tolkien" isn't a trademark per se, but it is a (very particular) pronoun, so its use as a domain name should be reserved for the Tolkien Estate, not some random cyber-squatter. Infringing trademarks in registering domain names is an obvious no-no ... but I wonder, suppose there actually was someone named J.R.R. Tolkien, and he registered this domain? Would he still have a legitimate right to the domain, or would the domain be taken away from him, even though it was his

  • How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caffeineHacker ( 689198 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:18AM (#7970918) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

      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
    • Not only is that analogy inaccurate but it would be more accurate if it were reversed!
      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)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:57AM (#7971051)
    Ironically, as far as I can tell, www.albertahotrods.com [albertahotrods.com] is still open.
    whois -h magic albertahotrods.com

    Crsnic.net hasn't heard of albertahotrods.com

    Whois Server Version 1.3

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
    for detailed information.

    No match for "ALBERTAHOTRODS.COM".
    (Not sure if that's the best way to check, but register.com and a few other domain registrars agree.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Close