Gail.com FAQ • Hacker News Board

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#31

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 8:52 AM UTC

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #26

From the domain takeover decision: "vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL;" Are lawyers allowed to lie like that? It is obviously not unlikely that the someone has never heard of this obscure "manufacturer and distributor of ceramic products for architectural use" company.

> Are lawyers allowed to lie like that?

This is a summary of claims. Lawyers are generally allowed to make claims based on incomplete information which they believe that they can show to the legally-required standard.

Necessarily, in an adversarial proceeding where there is a material dispute of fact, some claims of one side or the other will be rejected.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#32

Post by johnnyApplePRNG » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 8:53 AM UTC

I made a small fortune off of a website called "utube" on google of all search engines back when youtube.com was taking off.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#33

Post by pigtailgirl » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 8:53 AM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #11

charcircuit wrote: post #8

It must have been nice to have been alive in the early internet where barely any domains were taken. On the bright side domains have been less relevant since the rise of accessing sites via search engines and the move to mobile apps whose stores don't suffer from the squatting issues.

They were much more expensive in those days IIRC - today they are the cost of a couple of coffees, those days they were more like 25% the cost of a new computer... per year! It was also quite inaccessible in terms of purchasing - contracts, call our sales team etc. Things like GoDaddy were still either non-existent or very nascent in the mid-late 90s when I was just starting out as a early teen online. I had dreams a…

-- in the early 90s you could easily get domains for free - there were many registrars who would give you free .com or .co.uk in return an iframe that advertised the registrar! - this all but disappeared after 1995 =( --

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#34

Post by vincnetas » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 8:59 AM UTC

massimosgrelli wrote: post #15

It's so refreshing to see someone on the Internet not looking to make easy money showing off some lousy advertising. I would love to know more about the author; she's most likely interesting.

it's he. website name is his wife's name.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#35

Post by julian_sark » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 9:00 AM UTC

kome wrote: post #12

gourneau wrote: post #10

From the page source :)

it is not "unexciting by Internet standards". what the heck, it is gorgeous.

I find it even technically outstanding. Is that some sort of natural Moire pattern on it's back? Spliced-in turkey genes? I find this cat oddly fascinating.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#36

Post by arexxbifs » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 9:02 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #23

raesene9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite 90's style website, that's still running, is http://www.armory.com/armory.html , complete with FTP Index and user finger files.

Blocked by our company filter as an "adult" resource, so you might have to add a NSFW warning there.