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

71–80 of 232 posts

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

#71

Post by rrix2 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #41
djrogers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 associatio…

FTA:

> Defendants knew that they did not, and do not, have a right to the word "France," as evidenced by Defendant Atout France's US Trademark Registration No. 4027580, filed in 2009, in which Defendant expressly disclaimed the exclusive right to the word "France."

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

#72

Post by ada1981 »

pavlov wrote: post #23
Shinkei wrote: post #21

I'm pretty disappointed by all the armchair lawyering in this thread that isn't defending the individual/citizen in this case. .gov, .fr, etc were created for a reason. Trademark law is intended to protect people from intentionally misleading branding. These two items taken together should make it obvious that France.gov is the only name the government of France 'should' be entitled to. If you are willing to say that…

.gov is only available to the United States government. There's no way for France to get france.gov.

We should give this guy FRANCE.gov

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

#73

Post by ada1981 »

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…

Except he wasn’t a cyber squatter — he built a business around it.

It’s seems uncommon for countries to actually own COUNTRY.com - UnitedStates.com, America.com, Germany.com and many more are privately held.

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

#74

Post by hultner »

49bc wrote: post #61
deftnerd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 numb…

Telephone numbers are well delineated between counties with “country codes”. I don’t think anybody is confused about which country owns what number.

But so are domains, just with a suffix instead of a prefix.

You oughta think a .com domain is more suitable for a commercial entity then for a government/state department.

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

#75

Post by simias »

hultner wrote: post #74
49bc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telephone numbers are well delineated between counties with “country codes”. I don’t think anybody is confused about which country owns what number.

But so are domains, just with a suffix instead of a prefix. You oughta think a .com domain is more suitable for a commercial entity then for a government/state department.

.com has become the de-facto default TLD for the net for better or worse.

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

#76

Post by greglindahl »

fasj82 wrote: post #51
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,…

Maybe I'm weird but I think France.com belonging to France is the just thing. The last thing we need is giving more rights to squatters.

So if I have a US telephone number that spells out FRANCE, it's OK for France to seize it? 1-800-FRA-NCE1 ?

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

#77

Post by varjag »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #64
dfxm12 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Very dumb of Apple IMO. Just pay the guy. So what that he wants $x million?

If $x is more than $y they lose not owning the domain, it makes no business sense.

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

#78

Post by dpark »

lkrubner wrote: post #13
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,…

Why is this being downvoted? I'm citing the relevant court case.

Probably because you’re presenting a state level case as if it’s precedent for the US as a whole.

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

#79

Post by lkrubner »

Silhouette wrote: post #43
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 t…

"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."

That's a good argument for changing the law.

However, this is wrong:

"More than that, these IDs are becoming trusted ways to reach a specific person."

That is something that I would like to see, but that is definitely not the way things work now. If I fail to pay to renew a domain name, I lose it, just like if I fail to pay my phone bill, I lose it. I would like to see ids that belong to each person for life and which can not be sold or transferred. I'd especially like the postal service to offer me that option, so I would no longer need to give my physical address to strangers, but instead could simply give them my postal alias. But no such thing exists right now.

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

#80

Post by greglindahl »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #41
djrogers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 associatio…

Coca Cola probably doesn't have a trademark for chairs, so this is a bit of an odd example. If you tried to trademark Coca Cola chairs, Coca Cola would sue you based on confusion, not because they already have a trademark in the category of household furniture.
Post reply on HN