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

131–140 of 232 posts

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

#131

Post by mcny »

Cyph0n wrote: post #93
sloxy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? nissan.com is owned by Mr. Uzi Nissan so there is a reasonable defense that he has a justifiable claim to the domain. seems a lot more clear cut than this.

So you're saying that if the owner of france.com was a Mr. James France, the French government wouldn't have done the same thing?

The website claims that Nissan (the guy)'s business existed before Datsun became Nissan. I think there ought to be some kind of prior art for trademarks as well. It is not fair that a business suddenly not be allowed to use their trademark (even if they fail to register it) just because someone else registers it.

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

#132

Post by mcny »

gattafrettolosa wrote: post #47
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 ha…

> In this case bureaucrats should be condemned as if they were thief.

I don't think the public gets to go scott free in this. France is a democracy. If the French government does something, all French people are responsible for it. That's what the world says about us, why not France?

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

#133

Post by mercurial »

gaius wrote: post #38
mercurial wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also known as "enabling domain name squatters".

Ermm how exactly was an Internet company named Genesis Access Point domain-squatting a clothing company that didn’t even know what the internet was at the time they bought it? Did you think this one through?

In this particular instance, clearly not. However, a rule of "first come first served" does not do anything but validate domain name squatting as a business model. It's like patents, you may have a patent linked to a legitimate business, or you may be in the extortion business. Let's not enable extortionists.

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

#134

Post by return1 »

makecheck wrote: post #83

Somehow, despite domains having sufficient differentiation, it has evolved to the point where the first part seems to be all that matters. In this case, "something.fr" should be sufficient in France and yet the reality is that if you don’t also control "something. " for all possible values of " ", you might encounter a problem later. Even worse, it has evolved that we now have to care about certain patterns on certai…

.com is a good compromise. i believe the average user assumes the .com domain to be the most legitimate / canonical.

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

#136

Post by Shinkei »

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…

"It boggles the mind how anyone in their right mind can believe that a cyber-squatter shoud somehow have the right to hold the domain name of a sovereign nation for ransom."

I... just don't know how to respond to this. Do you have any proof that it was 'being held for ransom'? It sounds like it wasn't for sale at any price... it was hosting the man's business.

And I definitely don't agree with cyber-squatting... in fact I personally think that 'parked' domains should be returned to the public domain after some X years. I hate that there are people holding vast numbers of potentially useful domain names and not using them for anything.

I just don't understand how you drew that conclusion in this particular case... it sounds like the opposite actually.

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

#137

Post by johnchristopher »

cornholio wrote: post #126
dingaling wrote: post #2

So the case came down to violating French trademark law. That's because country names cannot be trademarked internationally ( and why tourist agencies register names like Visit ) So it's not clear why Web.com even responded to the complaint unless they have a presence in France. Or was the risk that it could have been escalated to a European level of penalty?

If country names cannot be trademarked, that makes the french government's case even weaker, according to WIPO rules - the international body tasked with untangling domain name disputes that fall outside national jurisdiction, like the .com hierarchy. Using a domain name in bad faith against an established trademark are both necessary conditions to seize a domain name. If the term is generic, it cannot be trademarked…

I haven't seen this mentioned yet in the thread but France.fr is a relatively new website for the promotion of tourism in France. Big part of their prospects is worlwide.

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

#138

Post by YawningAngel »

rrix2 wrote: post #71
jkaplowitz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That text only refers to an exclusive right

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

#139

Post by YawningAngel »

PunchTornado wrote: post #104

How can one sue the French government in a Virgina court. Should the French government waste tax money in hiring American attorneys and representing itself? I would say no.

Since the French government has assets in the United States, yes it very much should.

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

#140

Post by azernik »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #28
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,…

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…

Intellectual property isn't quite property either. The Supreme Court recently rules against a patent troll claiming that an administrative revocation of a patent was a taking without due process precisely by this reasoning.[EDIT: as detailed at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/opinion-analysis-justices-...]

Specifically:

> Two key points support the view that patents are matters of purely “public right.” The first is the notion, illustrated by quotations from earlier cases, that the patent is a “creature of statute law” that “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee.” The second is that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting patents; Congress’ decision to authorize the executive branch to grant patents is thus a constitutionally sanctioned delineation of “the executive power,” something which “need not be adjudicated in an Article III court.”

Public rights are not property.

Post reply on HN