MySpace wins UK domain name that pre-dated its service

[companyone]

Social networking company MySpace has won the right to have the domain name myspace.co.uk transferred to it despite the fact that it was registered six years before MySpace was founded.

The fact that the myspace.co.uk address led to a 'parked' page with adverts for social networking sites including MySpace was taken to be evidence of an abusive registration and the domain name was given to MySpace.

The ruling (pdf) was made by independent expert Antony Gold as part of the arbitration process run by the .uk domain registry, Nominet.

Total Web Solutions (TWS) of Stockport had registered myspace.co.uk in 1997 and used the address to offer mini websites to subscribers and email services. It said that though it no longer offers the mini websites it still provides email services to 18 subscribers at the address.

The arbitrator found, though, that it had changed the way that it used the address, subscribing to a system which put keyword-related adverts on to the page. Those ads related to MySpace.com and to social networking, meaning that TWS was profiting unfairly from its association with MySpace.

For that reason, Gold ruled that the domain name should pass to MySpace

Story Continued Here

___
Best,
Dan
http://randalsimmons.com/

 

[jasdon11]

Can't say that I'm suprised - should've been smart enough to use in a different way.

 

[katherine]

Not surprising. Some names are not to be parked for that reason.

 

[redomainer]

I must be missing something. I understand there are some whacked out laws regarding domains and I am NOT in favor of cybersquatters, but-

Isn't part of the point of speculating on land, stocks AND domains to profit from getting in before everyone else. So what that he is profiting off having a parked page with MySpace links-he should, HE had the domain name FIRST. Has someone made it illegal to profit off of someone else's lack of foresight?

Maybe MySpace should have registered all the extensions prior to starting the business in earnest!

Maybe the guy with the other extension should have taken MySpace to court and said that they're profiting by using an extension of the domain name he owned FIRST.

My personal view is that domains registration date should trump a lot of the other factors. Why is how the domain used even taken into consideration? If he's using the name illegally, fine, sue him for monetary damages but that still does not give them the right to steal the name if he truly had it registered first.

 

[Kamloops]

My personal view is that domains registration date should trump a lot of the other factors. Why is how the domain used even taken into consideration? If he's using the name illegally, fine, sue him for monetary damages but that still does not give them the right to steal the name if he truly had it registered first.

I agree with this. They have no right to the name. Sue him sure but take his property.

Stupid!

 

[katherine]

I must be missing something.

...

My personal view is that domains registration date should trump a lot of the other factors. Why is how the domain used even taken into consideration? If he's using the name illegally, fine, sue him for monetary damages but that still does not give them the right to steal the name if he truly had it registered first.

Regardless of what some may feel about it, 'First come first served' is not an absolute protection. If the domain is being used in bad faith (that is the case here) you risk losing it.
It's a TM infringement. The problem with parking, you have little control over which feeds are served to the visitor so certain names should simply not be parked.

 

[domain newbie]

its all the greed "TWS had sought up to £220,000 in return for the domain when contacted by MySpace"

i recon they had a big argument around the price - they would get away with $25k or so settlement i think..

 

[BidNo]

Despite how this has been sliced and diced it's fundamentally wrong to retroactively seize property (e.g. MySpace.co.uk) based on the subsequent actions of another (e.g. MySpace.com). The only certainty this creates is a system that has lots of lawyers and big money spent on their employment. Is it justice? Hell no.

My $.02 (after some brandy...)

 

[stuartsdomains]

myspace = assholes.

 

[Focus]

this is reverse hijacking at it's finest...who can rightfully tell them what to do with THEIR property when it predates the one that is causing it traffic? I guess that assuming all things to be equal online then youtube.com could take utube.com away from the industrial company using it to monetize the spillover traffic correct? This decision is complete and utter BS and I have a feeling that this guy (that decided in their favor) had Myspace in his back pocket if you know what I mean...this better get appealed to a higher court or something..this could set a very bad precedent for domain owners who have names that predate new services!

 

[buysellfast]

So Whats the conclusion? If some of us are in similar spots. Before the company was ever founded and we had the extension. What is the way going forward, Build a site around it and lose parking money?

any ideas?

 

[hugegrowth]

I think if you're the 'little guy' with the domain that pre-dates a big company who comes along later and uses the same domain but with a different extension - don't show ads related to the big company unless it's a real generic term, and even that is risky these days.

It's safest to make your content different from the bigger site, even if you bought your name before - whether it's right or wrong. Don't do anything the other party could use in a reverse-hijack situation.

 

[Focus]

ohh, thats fair