Oddly, I can't determine what location this is for. The workbetter.us domain redirects to a Squarespace landing page that has no real info (who, where, etc.). It seems they are mostly doing business as OfficeLinks (NYC and Chicago) and own the .com for that domain outright, so why do they have to go after this guy?
Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
71–80 of 115 posts
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#72I thought that when this happens that you just go register workbetter.ly or something. Isn't that the way of the web?
Exactly. And then when your company starts to do better, you throw $xx,xxx at the owner of the .com version and getdropbox.com becomes dropbox.com.
sometimes money is not enough, see steam.com
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#73I've also been sitting on a bunch of domainnames; all with the interest of "maybe some day" projects. One can hardly call that cybersquatting. It is, however very frustrating these days, .com is still king and for example I had whole dictionaries running for my keyword*.com -- and surprisingly enough, even the most insane combinations were taken. Ofcourse, selling a premium domain once in a while for 15k, makes it po…
Don't be so down on what you do. It's not hogging and it's not cybersquatting. This whole concept of it being wrong to register domains was back in the mid 90's when there was no cost and people would register names with clear trademark rights (like panavision.com) with the sole idea of selling it to only one person. The trademark owner. Not the same as what you and many others are doing.
Let's say a name that you would one day sell for $15k was registered by a flower shop that used it for business. In that case if someone else came along and wanted that name they would very well have to pay more than 15k for it and might not be able to purchase it at all.
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#74I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then. The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong. However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, bu…
Why does it need to be prevented exactly? Why is the internet different than anything other situation where people see an opportunity to make money and take advantage of that opportunity? Like buying real estate or wine, or art and so on?
It is trivial anyway to "use" a domain name. Are you further suggesting that someone who is legitimately "using" a domain name (and who is going to decide what use is anyway) then can't sell that domain name? And does that mean they can't sell the business that is attached to that domain name? Or you are going to have some tribunal that looks into the facts of every single case and decides 'ok this is a "real" business the domain can be sold, "no this isn't sorry"'?
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key take away is the part of the plaintiff's filing that seems to want to redefine 'register' to include 'renew'.
Which is going to look ridiculous as soon as it hits court, because there's clear precedent for the standard meaning - sixteen years of it. Team Harsh are probably hoping for an internet-ignorant judge. I wouldn't want to bet on their likely success with that gambit.
That's going to be an interesting conversation.
"Mr.Mehta when was your business started?"
"2003".
"And when was the domain in question registered."
".... uh, 1999".
"Are you sure you want to proceed?".
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#76I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?
I understand your general point, but I think it'd be highly problematic to start assessing ownership of things based solely on whether someone is doing something useful enough with them.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be able maintain ownership of that domain.
Arguably there is value in having someone sane sit on a domain and be willing to sell it for a reasonable price.
Also arguably, domains should never have been available for re-sale at all.
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except in this case the domain was registered 16 years ago. You can't just see a domain you like, go register a trademark for it and demand they give it to you. Atleast not for .com.
That is actually how trademark already works, if you have enough money. E.g. well funded brands like Coke, Google, Facebook, can easily use trademark to retroactively remove rights to a name from anyone who wasn't actively using it for some non-squatting purpose - within certain trademark and legal scopes. Doesn't matter if someone simply owned property with that name prior to the trademark. The test is more complex…
I am not sure if UK or US law will apply but in Commonwealth countries there is a clause in trademark law called Prior Use.
Basically if you are using an unregistered-trademark which is then later registered you are not considered to be infriging if you have been using this trademark before the trademark was registered.
Cyber squatting laws specifically call out that you need to have obtained the name with ill intent (i.e with intent to ransom it to an already registed trademark holder).
So no, that is not how trademark works, atleast in the codes of law I am familiar with.
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#78I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then. The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong. However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, bu…
Why does it need to be prevented exactly? Why is the internet different than anything other situation where people see an opportunity to make money and take advantage of that opportunity? Like buying real estate or wine, or art and so on? It is trivial anyway to "use" a domain name. Are you further suggesting that someone who is legitimately "using" a domain name (and who is going to decide what use is anyway) then c…
Because, it favours those who have more money. People who can afford a few dollars/pounds, mostly from the western countries, can keep domains booked for years. Others in the developing or under-developed world don't have that luxury... but the internet is a more global/democratic place... or should be.
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#79Purchasing domain names is the most frustrating experience. Why there is no transparent market is beyond me. Mehta's tactics are clearly abusive, but if someone was holding onto a domain name for 16 years and not doing anything with it is more infuriating to me. There really needs to be a use it or lose it policy.
How exactly do you define "doing something" with a domain? The Internet is not just the web and email. I own several domains that have no publicly accessible web sites or email servers; to declare that these domain are unused, however, is ludicrous. Do you advocate creating even more bureaucracy on the Internet by forcing domain owners to jump through hoops implementing some official definition of a "proper domain services" to prove to the public that their names are used? Shouldn't simply paying the recurring registration fee be enough?
Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sell me your domain for 5000 or I'll offer 100000...
We manage to assess real estate without running into those problems. It definitely wouldn't be an easy policy to enact.
> We manage to assess real estate without running into those problems.
We also don't generally use the documented offer standard you suggest for domain names for real property, but on objective features of the property, replacement costs based on those objective features, and application of a depreciation schedule to those features subject to depreciation.