International Domain Name Disputes Analyzed 20
An anonymous reader writes "Interestingly, there's a new article on Domain Name Disputes, from an international perspective, at the Oklahoma Journal of Law And Tech. It specifically looks at protest or 'sucks' sites."
dot sucks (Score:4, Funny)
Re: dot sucks (Score:1)
Frame link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Frame link (Score:3, Informative)
Because everyone prefers to read articles when they're squashed to 10% of the available screensize.
Re:Frame link (Score:2, Informative)
Arbitrators and companies both think strangely (Score:5, Insightful)
The strangest thing reported in this paper is that some arbitration panels have awarded critique domain names to the companies criticized on the grounds that non-native speakers of English may not understand American slang like "sucks" and so not realize that a site is a critique site. Aside from the fact that this ignores the fact that the site content will soon make it clear that it is not the company's own site, these panels seem not to understand that slang of general usage is probably the first thing to spread to other parts of the world.
The other striking fact reported is that some companies have attempted to pre-empt critics by registering the domain names that they are likely to use. Chase Manhattan Bank is mentioned as having registered a bunch of domain names, such as chasebanksucks.com. What this says to me is that these companies are overly concerned about criticism and therefore that they probably offer poor service and are unresponsive to complaints. I would avoid companies like that. This doesn't sound like a good way to enhance your company's reputation.
Re:Arbitrators and companies both think strangely (Score:4, Informative)
I went there, and it appears to be a legitimate protest site. See for yourself. [chasebanksucks.com]
Re:Arbitrators and companies both think strangely (Score:4, Informative)
I picked a bad example. chasebanksucks.com is the one domain name of this type that the critics got before the bank tried to pre-empt them.
Another bad example (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.primussucks.com [primussucks.com] is another bad example.
It belongs to the band Primus [primussucks.com]. It is their very primary and real website :)
It might be irony, or maybe they just don't like these guys [primus.com].
Re:Arbitrators and companies both think strangely (Score:2, Funny)
WIPO.org.uk (Score:2)
OBVIOUSLY - trademarks have to be identified on the Internet - just like they are in the real world.
There is a solution - use a protected TLD (e.g.
Just like people in US know
The authorities know this but would rather aid and abet big business unlawfully overr
Re:WIPO.org.uk (Score:2)
Sorry I did not fully explain (Score:3, Interesting)
I did know that multiple companies can own the same trademark - I have been talking to lawyers for YEARS.
I have also discussed this matter in detail with US and UK authorities.
I sent the following email to University of Oklahoma College of Law:
Please will you kindly forward this to Stacey Knapp.
I would also be very grateful for comments from trademark experts at Oklahoma College of Law.
I hope you will rise to the challenge
You know Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS -
Re:Sorry I did not fully explain (Score:1)
Some lawyers in a faculty room in Oklahoma are having quite a laugh at your expense, I reckon.
It is demonstrable fact - the system is corrupt (Score:2)
Even when I have been humble - based on past responses - that ain't going to happen.
It is demonstrable fact that the system is corrupt - I can give example.
Most people in authority are cowards whom are afraid to answer - they are without honour.
...sucks.com sites... (Score:2, Interesting)
One caught my eye, however. And I Am Appalled! This is something that directly influences and affects all of us! metricsucks.com [metricsucks.com] makes some bold, bald faced lies about who does and doesn't use metric!
Not to mention their cl
Re:...sucks.com sites... (Score:2)
Home Despot [homedespot.com]
Freedom of Speech (Score:1)
However, in a large number of cases, these companies are displaying gross incompetencies, and because they are too big a corporation to care about the 'little guy' as long as they continue to make obscene amounts of profits they wont c