- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,357
- Reaction score
- 223
The domain wasn't infringing on their mark, yes, "octopus" is a generic term but the content (title) and ads were infringing on their mark.
Look at what Oracle did earlier with Oracle.info - they knew they didn't have a chance with a lawsuit since the previous owner used it for the generic meaning.
The owner was stupid. She falsified the WhoIs information (against ICANN policies - if you want to "protect" your identity, use WhoIs privacy). She used to work for them (so she knows who they are) and then acquired the name and offered it to them for $500K to $1M. She also had travel related ads on the site. She also tried to transfer the name away from an Australian registrar to hide / keep the domain AFTER she received the C&D.
Honestly, if she was smarter and more careful she would have gotten a ruling of reverse hijacking.
Look at what Oracle did earlier with Oracle.info - they knew they didn't have a chance with a lawsuit since the previous owner used it for the generic meaning.
The owner was stupid. She falsified the WhoIs information (against ICANN policies - if you want to "protect" your identity, use WhoIs privacy). She used to work for them (so she knows who they are) and then acquired the name and offered it to them for $500K to $1M. She also had travel related ads on the site. She also tried to transfer the name away from an Australian registrar to hide / keep the domain AFTER she received the C&D.
Honestly, if she was smarter and more careful she would have gotten a ruling of reverse hijacking.