91–100 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about if you monetised it by phishing, pretending to actually be gmail.com?
How about punching a policeman, instead, and cut down on the time until you are transferred to a cell?
Also interesting in this space.... Microsoft vs a High School Kid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft Google fails to win dispute for oogle.com: http://blog.dnattorney.com/2012/07/google-loses-ooglecom-dom... Julia Roberts gets control of her namesake domain, but Bruce Springsteen does not: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bruce.html
Nissan are also assholes. I was going to get a G35, but nope after their web nonsense: https://www.google.com/#q=nissan.com+lawsuit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but at some point logic and reason take over. No one's mentioning money grubbing capitalism here at the expense of someone else... What we have here is literally a blank page, that offers no value to the reader. Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile I could understand. Yet, It's only a pat-myself-on-the-back message how they defend their name. So they USE the name to talk about how they're protecting the…
It doesn't exist for you. It exists for Gail. Not every website on this internet exists to be a product or sell you something.
But with the limited nature of domain names, gail.com could definitely be used for something more productive, and helpful, to society.
Considering the state it's in now, you're looking at a large upper range.
I never understand people that wouldn't sell something like this. So if Google offered you $500,000 you're not going to take it, just to make this stupid statement that you're against ads? Get real.
What would you do with an extra $500,000? Stop working? What if you love your work. Retire? What if you already have your old days planned? ... Buy a car? My car works just fine. Buy a new house? Already have a family one. Simply enjoy being rich? The money didn't even come from my hard work, dedication or skills. Not everyone enjoys having money.
And even for those who do, it tends to have declining marginal utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are ways but "I named my company after a common English word, someone already owns the domain for that word and it would benefit me to own it instead" is not a legitimate reason.
Agreed 100%. If your company was founded sometime after 2000 and you picked a name before registering that domain, you have no one to blame but yourself. You could say 2003 if you want to be generous.
I once worked with a guy who had a domain that is the name of a major bank in my country (i.e. he owned {bank_name}.xyz and the bank's domain is {bank_name}-bank.xyz). Somehow he managed to hold on to it over the years. Anyway, he had a catch-all email account for the domain, an sometimes interesting stuff would arrive. One day he showed me an email he had just received from a major investment firm that read more or…
Smells like phishing to me :) An email trying to pass as a normal workplace email.
It was years ago but IIRC, there were actual names and the email was clearly between two people who knew each other personally, contained phone numbers, etc. Also, it wasn't in English, so it wasn't some automated Nigerian scam or something like that for sure.
And if someone went through the trouble of obtaining so much intel (names, phones, company titles, bank branches, etc) - makes no sense they would then get the email wrong.
Also, at most the person sending the email would gain is some business bank account number, that's probably semi public knowledge anyway, without any authentication-enabling information.
This stuff is done by fax in my country to this very day, I'm not surprised at all that such an unencrypted mail was sent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> though I have no idea if I'd face any legal issues. Why would you? It's standard practice to set up a catch-all for your domain and you can just configure postfix to do that.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about punching a policeman, instead, and cut down on the time until you are transferred to a cell?
There's nothing wrong with receiving emails. I don't think it's actually illegal to do that. Just a bit morally off.
> Q: I think you're infringing on my trademark... > A: If you consult with someone well versed in trademark law, they will tell you that you can't have an exclusive trademark on a common word or name. My husband and I successfully defended ourselves against an attempted domain takeover in 2006; see WIPO Case D2006-0655 for more information. Well, it depends on the jurisdiction. In France, in the infamous "Milka" case…
In Germany, a lawyer named Dr. Andreas Shell lost a five-year legal dispute against the petrol multinational and had to hand over "shell.de" in 2001. Amazingly, in 1996 Shell actually was offered the domain at cost, but showed no interest.
Source, German only I am afraid: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/rechtsstreit-shell-gegen-...