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?
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
> 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
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:
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?
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?
the royalities go to the town council?
They took Barcelona.com from the legal owners.
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 126.96.36.199, so can
be found in library number 193, aisle 5, shelf 93 and is the 80th book along.
to WIPO - only Barcelona town council can write books about the place.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.