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

France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 232 posts

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#41

Post by jkaplowitz »

djrogers wrote: post #19
scriptproof wrote: post #4

https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names I have read the entire judgement and beside the fact you can not register the name of a country, he had not also the right to register a trademark from the beginning.

Wait a sec, “France” is a trademark?

It certainly could be a trademark, just not an exclusive one like Coca-Cola. If you wanted to market a "France" brand of chairs in the US, that'd be allowed most likely, but wouldn't prevent a "France" brand of dish towels from being registered by someone else.

You'd still need to avoid a false impression of origin for your chairs, but it could work if they're actually from France, you provide an alternate association for the word France in your context ("From Mr. France himself, your Kentucky neighbor since 1993!"), or just include in your branding/advertising enough clarity on where the chairs are from.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#42

Post by Karunamon »

geezerjay wrote: post #33
Shinkei wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I edited my post. I meant to say that governments have assigned/protected names like .fr, .de, etc.

No, they have not. Each country can manage country-code top level donains, but that's just it: a specific top-level domain they are free to use. That doesn't negate them the right of using other domains, just like if you buy a domain name you don't lose the right of using a second or a third one. It boggles the mind how anyone in their right mind can believe that a cyber-squatter shoud somehow have the right to hold…

The guy who owned the domain wasn’t “cyber squatting”. If he was, there is a process for that.. which wasn’t followed here.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#43

Post by Silhouette »

lkrubner wrote: post #7

The courts, in the USA, have found that domain names are not property, instead they are like telephone numbers: ---------------- The court found that under the California tariffs, rules, and regulations applicable to public utilities, and under the terms of the contracts, the debtors had no “proprietary right in the number.” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a84b472-c89f... Also: ...under Virginia law,…

The courts, in the USA, have found that domain names are not property, instead they are like telephone numbers

The implications of the current legal position you describe are troubling.

These virtual identifiers, whether it's a phone number or an email address or a domain name or a Twitter handle, are now the dominant way we contact someone. Physical addresses that are inherently tied to their current occupant (and the well-established pain that comes with updating everyone if you move home or office) are becoming secondary.

More than that, these IDs are becoming trusted ways to reach a specific person. Many organisations, including the likes of banks and governments, now rely on some form of two-factor authentication using phones for access to important facilities. Many organisations will grant you the keys to (your part of) their kingdom as long as you can respond to an email to the address they hold for you. Many businesses reach their customers through services at their domain, and that domain may enjoy special privileges that a customer has permitted such as being whitelisted for sending important emails or just simple things like being bookmarked in the customer's browser or turning off an ad-blocker to support a site.

The law seems to be outpaced significantly by the technology and society's use of it here. If we aren't going to enjoy real property rights in terms of these essential identities that are managed or hosted by third party services, stories like the one we're talking about here today may be the tip of the iceberg.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#44

Post by deftnerd »

lkrubner wrote: post #7

The courts, in the USA, have found that domain names are not property, instead they are like telephone numbers: ---------------- The court found that under the California tariffs, rules, and regulations applicable to public utilities, and under the terms of the contracts, the debtors had no “proprietary right in the number.” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a84b472-c89f... Also: ...under Virginia law,…

That's a dangerous precedent.

If nobody has the right to a phone number, and governments can assign any telephone number to themselves that they wish, that the Russian government can take over the phone number to the Whitehouse Switchboard? Then the Whitehouse would have to take it back and it would be the start of a perpetual tug-of-war?

I assume your response would be that "no, the US has already reserved that number". But isn't that what happened with France.com? It was already reserved.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#45

Post by SiempreViernes »

gattafrettolosa wrote: post #37
geezerjay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they have not. Each country can manage country-code top level donains, but that's just it: a specific top-level domain they are free to use. That doesn't negate them the right of using other domains, just like if you buy a domain name you don't lose the right of using a second or a third one. It boggles the mind how anyone in their right mind can believe that a cyber-squatter shoud somehow have the right to hold…

Individuals should have more rights and more freedoms than nations.

The UN having any such powers is a long way off, for now you get your rights ensured by your country.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#46

Post by ThomPete »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #35
loup-vaillant wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. Also, the practical consequences of losing a phone number are much tamer than that of losing a domain name. I'm not sure the courts would hold the same conclusions for domain names and phone numbers. While…

So the domain owner should have registered a business called "France.com"

He did, but more importantly, the French government isn't a business either.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#47

Post by gattafrettolosa »

phereford wrote: post #34

I know we are talking about this in the digital realm, but this also exists in the property realm too. Imminent Domain is used be governments to acquire land, generally below its actual valution, for building of infrastructure. I wonder if this concept will ever make it to the digital world.

I am against emi ent domain but at least it is justified by the fact that there are no alternatives. A road between two points must pass through some land, but if a domain name for your website isn't available don't be a bully and buy another one. Also you have to compensate with eminent domain, you can't just take. Not in decent societies anyway. What we have here is maximum statism. A bunch of french bureaucrats had some stupid idea on how to spend stolen taxpayers money to "improve" society, and they used their position to steal a domain name from a guy who was minding his own business. In this case bureaucrats should be condemned as if they were thief.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#48

Post by cobbzilla »

mixologic wrote: post #31
themaninthedark wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps so. But how would you have the issue resolved? Should the domain go to the most well known party? The product a reasonable person expects to find when they type in the address? What happens if I register icar.com for product that syncs your car to the cloud. Then Apple decides they want to compete with Elon Musk, with their new Icar. Who will get the domain? What happens when a large company decides to rebran…

Wow. Nissan.com has a dropdown labled "people's opinions" with 505 pages. Thats.. one way to build a navigation.

the most charitable explanation might be that they can't afford good web design because all their money is funding their legal defense.

Re: France seizes france.com from man who's had it since 1994

#49

Post by dfxm12 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #24
mercurial wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also known as "enabling domain name squatters".

Perhaps so. But how would you have the issue resolved? Should the domain go to the most well known party? The product a reasonable person expects to find when they type in the address? What happens if I register icar.com for product that syncs your car to the cloud. Then Apple decides they want to compete with Elon Musk, with their new Icar. Who will get the domain? What happens when a large company decides to rebran…

Going by iPad.com as an example, you'd play a game of chicken with Apple, because the moment you try to monetize that site in almost any way, they'll sue you for trademark infringement. You'll hope they offer you a ton of money for it, but Apple's brand is strong enough that they don't need it.

Mr. Nissan is lucky that he had an existing business that wasn't car related and he only registered his name...

Post reply on HN