_for-sale DNS records

In my case, I don't see it as a domain that I lost. I sold it.

Trademarks are interesting. They don't need to be registered in order to be protected (although they can be registered), and they aren't usually absolute (even if they are registered).

So, like: There's a bunch of different entities named "First Federal Bank" in the US, and that can be OK as long as they each operate in their own distinct areas. It definitely becomes problematic when the First Federal Bank that normally operates in/around Tuscaloosa tries to open a branch across the street from the First Federal Bank that is centered on Littlefield, Texas, but outside of conflict: It can be fine.

A common name can also sometimes be used in distinctly-different lines of business or products. That's OK, too. Like Dove (the soap), and Dove (the candy bar). They're both trademarks -- they're even both registered. But they're distinct-enough products that it works: It's difficult to confuse a Dove candy bar with a Dove soap bar.

And there's also the concept of well-known marks, like: Everyone knows what a Pepsi is. There's no chance that Pepsi would avoid seeking action against anyone else using that name for any purpose, and because Pepsi is so well-known there's very close to zero chance that a court would tolerate it either.

A person can certainly start a company named Pepsi Shafting that makes drive shafts, but they won't be able to keep that name for very long. The cease-and-desist letter would appear approximately instantly and none of the threats it contained would be empty.

---

Anyway, back to my case: At the time when I registered the domain, I was operating a one-man hands-on services company and I wasn't selling anything tangible.

Meanwhile, the other party had a sleepy little business selling very specialized goods online. They weren't offering services at all. It was just a little post-bubble online shop like so many others.

I discovered them as I did my diligence before I registered the domain. I was aware that we weren't doing the same things at all. Like Dove and Dove, this was fine.

The other company subsequently branched out and got pretty darned big. I don't know if they ran into some VC money or what, but I'm completely confident that you've heard of them. Since you're on HN, there's a good chance you've even bought stuff from them at some point.

Hell, there's pretty profound chance that the founder will be reading this comment. :)

These days, it would probably be pass muster in court as a well-known brand, like Pepsi certainly is. But way back then (over 20 years ago now), it would not have.

So while I do have reasonable certainty that I could have kept my domain if I wanted to, it just wasn't worth that much to me. In fact, it turns out that was worth exactly $6,000.00 to me.

The nissan.com case is certainly compelling. It was included in my research.

It sure would be funny if my domain were added to the roster of similar incidents after a protracted court battle, but meh. I regret nothing, and I appreciate the excellent work that the new owner has been doing in advocating for consumer rights.

It's literally all good.

30k is nice! I once got $1000 for dubstepradio.com Don’t regret selling it for that much at all.

It depends on the country.

In the US, you normally don't recover costs even if you win; sometimes you can get an exception, especially if your opponent behaved in a particularly egregious manner.

In most of the rest of the English-speaking world, the normal rule is the loser pays a significant percentage of the winner's costs. I know here in Australia, the default is the loser pays (on average) 50–75% of the winner's costs ("standard costs")–the variation is because the judge sends the case to an auditor who reviews the winner's legal bill against the rule book, and so the exact percentage depends on factors like which tasks the winner's lawyer charged them for, their hourly rate, what the auditor viewed as reasonable given the complexity of the case, etc. Convince the judge the loser behaved egregiously, and then you get indemnity costs, which are closer to 85-100%.

This has pros and cons. For the "little guy", it makes lawsuits much more survivable if you are confident you are going to win; it makes you much more inclined to just fold if you think there is a significant risk you'll lose.

But you could have the same with 'tech.com.' or 'tech.us.'?

That’s not true at all. Do you know who Joost de Valk is? Because it’s wild for you to say that, truly. That man has probably been building websites for longer than you have been alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost_de_Valk