cybersquatting on DNF

[DotLeader]

:finger smiley:

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
It is obvious to anybody with half a brain.

Well, people only use 10% of it, so that person must be 5X smarter than the rest of us...

 

[mole]

It's really really simple:-

1. If you get a C&D and you think its a valid claim, then turn over the domain, no sweat.

2. If not, hire lawyers and fight like what berry does for Yun Ye all the time.

3. If your greater-than-thou psycho-tendencies become too strong and you hate to see anything remotely resembling a "trademark", then go to your user CP and activate 'ignore' what your mind has labelled a so-called cybersquatter.

Judge not least you be judged. This thread has nothing to do with expressing an opinion, but of directly insinuating to specific members here on this forum that they are criminals and thieves. Mods, please do what's necessary to maintain karma here.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by mole
This thread has nothing to do with expressing an opinion, but of directly insinuating to specific members here on this forum that they are criminals and thieves.

You say that like it's a bad thing. They are breaking the law, so of course responsible people will tell them off.

Mods, please do what's necessary to maintain karma here.

If they were going to maintain karma, they'd ban the obvious trademark infringing names and the lawbreakers who post them. Those supporting the "right" to cybersquat are pushing some very bad karma onto this board.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

It's really really simple:-

1. If you get a C&D and you think its a valid claim, then turn over the domain, no sweat.

IT'S EVEN EASIER THAN THAT. DON'T CYBERSQUAT TO BEGIN WITH! DON'T REGISTER DOMAINS CONTAINING FAMOUS DISTINCTIVE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS. DON'T SELL THEM. DON'T DEFEND SCUMBAGS WHO DO.

This thread has nothing to do with expressing an opinion, but of directly insinuating to specific members here on this forum that they are criminals and thieves.

THERE IS NO INSINUATION. IT IS STATED PLAIN AS DAY: THE VARIOUS PEOPLE SELLING INFRINGING DOMAINS ARE THIEVES.

 

[mole]

hmmmmm... obviously you guys have NEVER experienced Reserve Cyberjacking...

http://www.nissan.com

That's why lawyers like John and Howard and Ari are here.

TM laws applies only to a specific CLASS of good/services, not to the whole goddamn WORLD, and especially not to the Internet DNS which spans the globe.

Why can't I register ebaydogs.com for my own business in Timbuktu as a dog training school? Why can't I register Lamborghinidogs.org for a retreat for sick dogs?

REVERSE CYBERJACKING is a rampant crime committed by big organisations who think they own everything related to, example, Bay, and have the thugs and black money to intimidate those cowards with small balls, arse-licking and no guts to call their own. Like a big towering bully taking candy from a kid....

My humble advise is please learn about TM law on the internet before you make tunnel thinking deductions of addressing righteousness on the internet. You however maintain your right to look really KKK and Nazism to the rest of us here in this forum.

If you need further enlightenment, please visit

http://www.wipo.org.uk and look for Garry Anderson.

Sure, it feels good to feel you are right. So thought Adolf Hitler.

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by mole
hmmmmm... obviously you guys have NEVER experienced Reserve Cyberjacking...

http://www.nissan.com

That's why lawyers like John and Howard and Ari are here.

TM laws applies only to a specific CLASS of good/services, not to the whole goddamn WORLD, and especially not to the Internet DNS which spans the globe.

Why can't I register ebaydogs.com for my own business in Timbuktu as a dog training school? Why can't I register Lamborghinidogs.org for a retreat for sick dogs?

REVERSE CYBERJACKING is a rampant crime committed by big organisations who think they own everything related to, example, Bay, and have the thugs and black money to intimidate those cowards with small balls, arse-licking and no guts to call their own. Like a big towering bully taking candy from a kid....

My humble advise is please learn about TM law on the internet before you make tunnel thinking deductions of addressing righteousness on the internet. You however maintain your right to look really KKK and Nazism to the rest of us here in this forum.

If you need further enlightenment, please visit

http://www.wipo.org.uk and look for Garry Anderson.

Sure, it feels good to feel you are right. So thought Adolf Hitler.

Hey Mole

Good information there again from you. I continue to be impressed. I agree with some of the arguments made by the site above, but it's more geared toward this guys campaign to get the sub ".reg" approved for trademarks on the Net than anything else. Might be a good idea, but that would take a lot more study.

In regards to your example above, I see NO reason why you couldn't reg "ebaydogs" in Timbuktu if you have a dog business there and I believe you would be successful in a arguing your case at WIPO if Ebay tried to challenge you. That's because you regged and are using the name "in good faith".

Now if you also trademark that name in Timbuktu, spend a ton of money and effort to make your trademark famous and someone regs ebaydogstimbuktu "in bad faith" to try and steal some of your traffic to offer his dog products. You might feel that you should have some rights to protect yourself. After all, isn't that what the trademark is for in the first place?

What we are complaining about on this thread is the blantant disregard by some posters, for the property rights of others. Their obvious actions of "bad faith" give the rest of us (that are trying to work in this area in an honest way), a bad rap or rep.

When cybersquatters or typosquatters reg a variation of a famous trademark with the intention of profitting by the confusion and mis-direction of the public, that bastardizes the Internet and reduces the distinct value of domains in general.

In other words they don't care if the value of all our domains go down if they can make a buck on a ppc, and could give a damn if they are profitting by leading the public to someplace they didn't want to go.

Then they have the gall to attempt to sell those "bad faith" regs to others (here) based on the value of that mis-directed traffic, and without concern for the risk to the new buyer (our fellow members) of possible civil penalty.

That's not ok.

By the by, I am also just as strongly opposed to reverse domain highjacking as you mentioned above, but accusing (whoever you did) of KKK involvement or Nazism is going overboard.
Doc

 

[mole]

Heheh, okay its a truce then doc? You give others the benefit of the doubt (damnit we are all learning), and I won't mention KKK and Nazism again. :-D

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

You however maintain your right to look really KKK and Nazism to the rest of us here in this forum.
++++++++++++++

When the 'N' word comes out, you know an argument is near the end-game..

 

[DotLeader]

anyway while we are on the subject of assholes like MYSELF
ruining the reputation of domainers

what about assholes who try to sell names of charity organisations and then when the charitys dont offer enough of a ransom they redirect the traffic to PORN i remember cases such as bhf.org ( British heart foundation) and even the salvation army and tons of others

Some pretty well known charity organisations here
hey atleast i send the visitors to a page with links they are interested in and if i ever got contacted by the likes of the BHF or salvation army i would give it them infact i would have givin it to them before i sent it to a ppc page


the guy who ransomed the charitys then sent it to a adult site when his/her needs were not met is who you should be after him/her is what is giving domainers a bad name
OH wait thats you DotComCowboy
Any hear that noise?
do i hear someone yelling hypocrite

k:

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

anyway while we are on the subject of assholes like MYSELF
ruining the reputation of domainers

what about assholes who try to sell names of charity organisations and then when the charitys dont offer enough of a ransom they redirect the traffic to PORN i remember cases such as bhf.org ( British heart foundation) and even the salvation army and tons of others

Some pretty well known charity organisations here
hey atleast i send the visitors to a page with links they are interested in and if i ever got contacted by the likes of the BHF or salvation army i would give it them infact i would have givin it to them before i sent it to a ppc page

the guy who ransomed the charitys then sent it to a adult site when his/her needs were not met is who you should be after him/her is what is giving domainers a bad name
OH wait thats you DotComCowboy
Any hear that noise?
do i hear someone yelling hypocrite
++++++++++++++++++

Now we are definitely near the end. The accused is now pointing the finger at the accuser.

'BHF' was not a famous distinctive registered trademark --and the panelist agreed with me and I won the arbitration. That doesn't sound like cybersquatting to me.

 

[DotLeader]

ok we come to an agreement

there no case stating i am a cybersquatter
no lawyers have asked for there typos from me

do you have kids mate?
how would you feel if they went to a site and got porn

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

do you have kids mate?

how would you feel if they went to a site and got porn
++++++++++++++

Yes, I do.

I would blame myself because I believe that parents need to be responsible for monitoring their children's use of the internet. I do not believe that the world needs to watch my kids.

 

[DotLeader]

thats the thing if a kid is doing homework for school and needs info on a charity and goes to the website which is most likely to be the site and get porn then its hardy the parents fault

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Maybe, although the British Heart Foundation doesn't seem to think it is that important. It's not important enough that they would offer any fair compensation for a generic domain name, so I guess it can't be all THAT important.

 

[DotLeader]

:dead:

 

[wyvern]

Are you kidding? Do I hear correctly that DCC took bhf.org and pointed it to a porn site because the British Heart Foundation wouldn't pay what he considered the correct markup? Please tell me I misunderstood.

If this is correct (I hope not), then DCC has a lot of b*lls saying anything to anybody about their ethics. Nuff said!

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

If I were in the wrong --how come I won the arbitration?

 

[DotLeader]

you just dont get it do you..

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Yea, I get it.

Flagrantly break the law, post defiantly that you will keep doing it, and then use every possible argument to defend yourself --including a last desperate bid to assasinate the character of the person who challenges you, even when the facts don't support your position.