staple.com - Reverse domain hijacking...

[.biz]

what the heck is this?

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-1028.html

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <staple.com> be transferred to Complainant Staples, Inc.


.biz

 

[Digital Address]

Correct decision.

 

[TurNIC.com]

Where is the reverse domain hijacking here? It is cryctal clear that staple.com dilutes the mark Staples. Additionally, I wonder why I got this text when I tried to search staple.com on archive.org:

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to http://www.staple.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

TurNIC.com

 

[Luc]

Where is the reverse domain hijacking here? It is cryctal clear that staple.com dilutes the mark Staples. Additionally, I wonder why I got this text when I tried to search staple.com on archive.org:

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to http://www.staple.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

TurNIC.com

They should not win these types of cases. "Staple" is a very generic term.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[actnow]

Luc, he made the mistake when he pointed it towards Staples.com
He was clearly profitting from Staples.com TM.

If he had used it for something different. He would probably still own it today.

 

[Bob]

If the guy who has staple is dumb enough to direct it to staples.com and try to collect affiliate revenues, then he SHOULD lose the name.

If he had used it for anything else, there would have been a high probability that he would have been able to keep it. Intent is everything.

just my 4 cents (inflation)

-Bob

 

[Luc]

Luc, he made the mistake when he pointed it towards Staples.com
He was clearly profitting from Staples.com TM.

If he had used it for something different. He would probably still own it today.

Ok. He is a moron. I agree he should have lost the domain.

Didn't realize he was pointing it to staples.com

Booo!

 

[Jernet]

Althought the guy is a moron, I think this should have been handled more democratically.

Instead of just "giving" the domain name to staples.com, which I think is a load of crap, I think the guy should have had the option to either pay a fine, pay back all commissions paid thru the affiliate program, put up a 'real' site, or sell the domain.

Since staple is a generic word, it has a significant value, and staples.com shouldn't just be able to gain control of it. I wonder how many attempts staples ever made to actually "buy" the domain name in the first place. Probably NONE!

Another large company getting something for free

 

[.biz]

Althought the guy is a moron, I think this should have been handled more democratically.

Instead of just "giving" the domain name to staples.com, which I think is a load of crap, I think the guy should have had the option to either pay a fine, pay back all commissions paid thru the affiliate program, put up a 'real' site, or sell the domain.

Since staple is a generic word, it has a significant value, and staples.com shouldn't just be able to gain control of it. I wonder how many attempts staples ever made to actually "buy" the domain name in the first place. Probably NONE!

Another large company getting something for free

That is what i mean by reverse domain hi-jacking. Even though, he pointed the site to Staples, it doesn't mean that Staples has right to take the domain name. You guys have just being given false education by WIPO in the past years.

.biz

 

[Jernet]

That is what i mean by reverse domain hi-jacking. Even though, he pointed the site to Staples, it doesn't mean that Staples has right to take the domain name. You guys have just being given false education by WIPO in the past years.

.biz

It is no different than reverse-discrimination I tells ya