Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Sat, October 20, 2001 at 4:57 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: What flipping rules?

Message:
 

 
They seem to ignore rules whenever they like - especially if it helps them to take domain from legal owner and give to big business.

You can see this from the variations in UDRP decisions - they are obviously biased to trademarks.

> Can anyone clarify for me what the guidelines are?

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/index.html

Reverse domain name hijacking (from UDRP decision):

Rule 1 defines reverse domain name hijacking as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”  See also Rule 15(e).  To prevail on such a claim, Respondent must show that Complainant knew of Respondent’s unassailable right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith registration and use, and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith5.  Since the Complainant has shown that it is entitled to relief, the claim for reverse domain name hijacking fails.

*****

> What constitutes registering in bad faith?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that "bad faith" is any excuse they can think of, to steal domain from you.

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

*****

> What constitutes 'no rights or legitimate interests' in a domain?

Again, anything they can think of to steal your domain off you.

I cannot, at moment, find anything specific to that.

*****

> With respect to geographical place names, am I allowed to make a site about a city on the other side of the world?

They are making rules to steal these domains from people.

I see it like this:

If you decided to write a book, entitled, 'Barcelona' - does that book belong to the Barcelona town council?

Do the royalities go to the town council?

They took Barcelona.com from the legal owners.

The DNS is comparable to a world library book index system.

The tattered and well used book "WIPO.org", an idiots guide on how to steal domains, is at 193.5.93.80, so can be found in library number 193, aisle 5, shelf 93 and is the 80th book along.

According to WIPO - only Barcelona town council can write books about the place.

You know, I think the UN WIPO is a load of doggy doo.

*****

> If I put a 'for sale' sign on the domain does this destroy any claim of legitimate interest?

This is propaganda to steal your domains.

Put it back to you:

If I put a 'for sale' sign on my [insert item] does this destroy any claim of legitimate interest?

Say you bought a bag of diamonds very cheaply and sold them on the open market, is there anything wrong with that?

Of course not - it is legitimate commerce.

Solicitors were trying to reverse hijack my friends sons domain.

They were basically saying his son did not have legitimate reason to buy the domain - just with a view to profit from it.

I bit their head off - they have not been back.

This is small part of the email I sent on my friends behalf:

2. Legitimacy - You imply something wrong with “brokering”. Memorable domain names, like PlayUK co UK, command high prices on the secondary market. See for yourself at Great Domains. They are owned by VeriSign, the world's largest provider of Internet trust services. As you may already know, if you bought anything on the Internet, they ensure secure payments online. Proctor and Gamble have thousands of domains and are selling many off, they had beautiful.com valued at three million dollars. So you can see - the secondary market is legitimate commerce. They sell domain names [sic]“…with a view to profit” - since profit is the main purpose of commerce.
 

Link: WIPO.org.uk


Message Thread: