Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gail, not Gmail

gail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#71

Post by gregshap »

skaber wrote: post #55

So there's really no way for a company to take over a domain if they have a legitimate reason? My company's dot com shows what looks to be a low value video. I've reached out to the guy a few years ago and he simply replied that there were some things that money couldn't buy... Petal.com if you're interested. I'd love to have that domain, and yeah it's affecting our brand.

There are ways but "I named my company after a common English word, someone already owns the domain for that word and it would benefit me to own it instead" is not a legitimate reason.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#73

Post by erelde »

roninb wrote: post #68
erelde wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smells like phishing to me :) An email trying to pass as a normal workplace email.

I'm sure a vast majority of it was phishing, but you may be surprised to know how many and how often people send info like that over unencrypted email.

Oh yes I agree, that's why phishing exists in the first place. Because people do it, so someone can take advantage of those people's (bad) habits.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#74

Post by byroot »

Aissen wrote: post #42

> Q: I think you're infringing on my trademark... > A: If you consult with someone well versed in trademark law, they will tell you that you can't have an exclusive trademark on a common word or name. My husband and I successfully defended ourselves against an attempted domain takeover in 2006; see WIPO Case D2006-0655 for more information. Well, it depends on the jurisdiction. In France, in the infamous "Milka" case…

Even in France that wouldn't fly. Milka lost this case because besides having the milka.fr domains, her webdesign was using a color close to the brand one.

As a result the judges ruled that she was piggybacking on the established brand.

If her design was say green instead of purple, she would likely have won the trial.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#75

Post by nkrisc »

gregshap wrote: post #71
skaber wrote: post #55

So there's really no way for a company to take over a domain if they have a legitimate reason? My company's dot com shows what looks to be a low value video. I've reached out to the guy a few years ago and he simply replied that there were some things that money couldn't buy... Petal.com if you're interested. I'd love to have that domain, and yeah it's affecting our brand.

There are ways but "I named my company after a common English word, someone already owns the domain for that word and it would benefit me to own it instead" is not a legitimate reason.

Agreed 100%. If your company was founded sometime after 2000 and you picked a name before registering that domain, you have no one to blame but yourself. You could say 2003 if you want to be generous.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#76

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

blauditore wrote: post #21

I think you couldn't make much money out of this anyway. 5k daily visitors sounds decent, but they are of low "quality": They quickly leave and would generate bad click-through rates. It would probably yield less than $100 a month.

The entire page is 2501 bytes consisting of 246 words. How do you figure that slow readers are higher quality visitors than the others?

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#77

Post by zymhan »

burntsushi wrote: post #41

The FAQ links to an account of an attempted takeover of the domain that I found fascinating to read: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006... Some interesting excerpts: > vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the com…

It is weird how DNS names can be legally reassigned. It's like being forced to move to a different street or something. Or to give up a neat phone number because another company has the same phoneword.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#78

Post by libeclipse »

kppiskingpp wrote: post #56
Exuma wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but at some point logic and reason take over. No one's mentioning money grubbing capitalism here at the expense of someone else... What we have here is literally a blank page, that offers no value to the reader. Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile I could understand. Yet, It's only a pat-myself-on-the-back message how they defend their name. So they USE the name to talk about how they're protecting the…

She has enough money to make her happy and don't give a fuck. You get real. Get a life for christ sake. Asshole.

Alright there's clearly some differences of opinion here, but can we keep it civil and have a reasonable discussion?

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#79

Post by detaro »

gravypod wrote: post #64
mfukar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about punching a policeman, instead, and cut down on the time until you are transferred to a cell?

There's nothing wrong with receiving emails. I don't think it's actually illegal to do that. Just a bit morally off.

Just receiving e-mails would hardly be a way to "monetize it by phishing".

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#80

Post by brianzelip »

Exuma wrote: post #46
alekratz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's her personal site, and it looks like she just wants to be left alone. You get real, not everything is about money.

Sorry, but at some point logic and reason take over. No one's mentioning money grubbing capitalism here at the expense of someone else... What we have here is literally a blank page, that offers no value to the reader. Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile I could understand. Yet, It's only a pat-myself-on-the-back message how they defend their name. So they USE the name to talk about how they're protecting the…

> Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile

The spirit is very worthwhile. The EFF img is awesome!

Post reply on HN