Cyber Squatting

[Wicksta]

Obviously this thread has been answered from a legal standpoint, but from I moral standpoint I agree with the OP. The guy has clearly got it just to make money from selling it and I don’t think it should be allowed. Whenever I’m after a domain for anything, 90% of the domains I try will always be taken but not in use. They are just bought up to sell on at stupid prices.

I disagree. This website was set up in 1996, clearly as an early internet business, I had a similar site around the same time. Just because he's let it stagnate doesn't mean he should let it go, it's quite a nice domain name and as has been explained he still may use it for other things.

I really don't think it was just registered to sell it.

 

[Booner!]

Is it not the truth though? we are a business that once was the size of his "company" and now growing, now we are facing issues like this to stop us from growing further to become a larger corporation.

I don't see how it is fair for him to what he is doing. But I guess I am wrong, it can be taken either way. I am not hugely bothered, but I think what he is doing is greedy and immoral. We have offered him a substancial amount of money.

 

[DarkShadow]

Is it not the truth though? we are a business that once was the size of his "company" and now growing, now we are facing issues like this to stop us from growing further to become a larger corporation.

I don't see how it is fair for him to what he is doing. But I guess I am wrong

Hold on, he's causing an obstruction for your company's expansion by owning a .com domain. Whilst he was the first to own the domain, and now he also thinks it's not his worthwhile at not letting it go below his asking price.

Okay . . .

 

[boycee]

Is it not the truth though? we are a business that once was the size of his "company" and now growing, now we are facing issues like this to stop us from growing further to become a larger corporation.

I don't see how it is fair for him to what he is doing. But I guess I am wrong

I really don't think it's going to stop you grow...
a) how much traffic comes from people randomly typing in domain names and not search results.
b) I'm fairly sure no one will confuse the two websites.
c) if people know the name, they'll try a search.

It is fair, but just unfortunate for you.

 

[RDM]

I treat the internet as a gateway to a "island" free from the general rules of real life, which is why I may come across very different here, than in real life. Authorities should never have the opportunity to touch the internet or the way it works for this very reason...

If that is the case why are you trying to use the authorities to get your own way on the internet?

 

[Booner!]

If that is the case why are you trying to use the authorities to get your own way on the internet?

Again, it's not my OWN way, something which the company had suggested and looking into.

 

[Deadly Ferret]

We have offered him a substancial amount of money.

It may seem substantial on the face of it, but if this is what's stopping your company become a corporation then quite frankly it's an insulting offer!


It comes down to this: you made an offer, he rejected it, you still want it - ergo offer more or forget about it! In principle, finding some way to pervert the law into bullying his domain into your possession is no different to councils forcing people to sell their properties to them so they can develop the land. It may be legal, but it's wrong.

 

[Gilly]

Is it not the truth though? we are a business that once was the size of his "company" and now growing, now we are facing issues like this to stop us from growing further to become a larger corporation.

Pay the money or you don't get the domain. I'll say it again in case you missed it the first five times you've been told in here - that is how our society works.

I don't see how it is fair for him to what he is doing. But I guess I am wrong, it can be taken either way. I am not hugely bothered, but I think what he is doing is greedy and immoral. We have offered him a substancial amount of money.

You are wrong yes, and no it cannot be taken either way. It is fair because it is his. Not yours. Your amount of money doesn't match his valuation of the worth. Therefore you aren't entitled to a thing unless you raise your offer.

 

[Slogan]

Either pay the guy what he wants or move on.

The fact he's had it for 10 years should give him more than right to use it - no matter how crap the website may look.

 

[Wicksta]

Obviously this thread has been answered from a legal standpoint, but from I moral standpoint I agree with the OP. The guy has clearly got it just to make money from selling it and I don’t think it should be allowed. Whenever I’m after a domain for anything, 90% of the domains I try will always be taken but not in use. They are just bought up to sell on at stupid prices.

This is of course a detriment to the internet, because it means if someone comes along and wants to set up a new website, they either have to have a really rubbish domain, or they have to pay a massive amount from some scum-bag domain hoarder.

Its one of the many things that I think is wrong with the Internet, but easily fixable if the authorities around the world could be bothered to sort out the injustices of the internet to make it a better place. But they won’t.

Out of interest, do you think it fair that Booners! company is trying to register every single version of webmart. What if an American company called Webmart comes along and finds this silly little UK company squatting on the US .com domain?

 

[Booner!]

Out of interest, do you think it fair that Booners! company is trying to register every single version of webmart. What if an American company called Webmart comes along and finds this silly little UK company squatting on the US .com domain?

We aren't squatting though...?

You are wrong yes, and no it cannot be taken either way..

Ok I am wrong, but it can be looked at either way.. otherwise EVERYONE in this thread would have given the same opinion, but no - they didn't. I cba to quote them all but you get my drift.

I doubt we will pay the money yet or at all to be honest, I can't see the company forking out for it. I have at least learnt more about Cyber Squatting and also the legalities behind it.

 

[boycee]

We aren't squatting though...?

is he? You appear to be making an awful lot of assumptions.

 

[Booner!]

is he? You appear to be making an awful lot of assumptions.

eh?

I highly doubt it count as cyber squatting if a company trading under a name also takes similar names which don't actually mean anything but typo's or alternative terms for our company. Seeing as it directs them to our trading website, it would seem that we are both Active and have substantial reason to hold that website name.

 

[divine`]

A lot of people in this thread have a very warped definition of cyber squatting.

You only have a case if it can be shown he bought that domain in bad faith purely for the purpose of extorting money from you, because he knew you would buy it. Seeing as he bought it 12 years ago, I don't think this is the case.

Cyber-squatting would be noticing a huge company hasn't bought a domain, like say www.samsung.com was available. If I bought this, then said to Samsung it'd cost them £250k to have that domain, i'd get it taken away, because my only use for it was to extort money from Samsung and I had no legitimate claim to it.

You won't be having that domain unless you pay him, he isn't squatting it, he has just as much right to it as anyone else does. No two ways about it.

 

[Wicksta]

We aren't squatting though...?

Where is this magical line then which says whether your are squatting or not? Why when you have the .co.uk domain do you want the American domain as well when you're a UK-only company? Redrum was moaning about people sitting on domains that they don't need, which is exactly what you would be doing.

 

[RDM]

eh?

I highly doubt it count as cyber squatting if a company trading under a name also takes similar names which don't actually mean anything but typo's or alternative terms for our company. Seeing as it directs them to our trading website, it would seem that we are both Active and have substantial reason to hold that website name.

The assumption that you are making is that he is a cyber squatter when that is not something you can say with any certainty.

 

[Booner!]

Where is this magical line then which says whether your are squatting or not? Why when you have the .co.uk domain do you want the American domain as well when you're a UK-only company? Redrum was moaning about people sitting on domains that they don't need, which is exactly what you would be doing.

If you read the thread, I said that we are looking to move internationally. This includes exapand our trade with american based companies. Does that not constitute a need for a .com?

Plus I was also using this legality post as a guide:

In order for a trademark owner to bring a claim under the ACPA, the owner must establish

*
* the trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;
* the domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and
* the domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks).

With regards to assumptions (I hate that word)

The assumption that you are making is that he is a cyber squatter when that is not something you can say with any certainty.

Can this be defined as Cyber Squatting? What can we do about this?

Original post is asking whether it is defined as Cyber Squatting... I don't mean to come across that he IS a cyber squatter, I just wanted to know where we stood if it was the case

 

[divine`]

Where is this magical line then which says whether your are squatting or not?

Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

About there.

 

[div0]

Where is this magical line then which says whether your are squatting or not? Why when you have the .co.uk domain do you want the American domain as well when you're a UK-only company? Redrum was moaning about people sitting on domains that they don't need, which is exactly what you would be doing.

I think he explained the need for the .com by saying that they were looking to branch out globally or something, and so would no longer be 'UK-only'.

 

[Wicksta]

If you read the thread, I said that we are looking to move internationally. This includes exapand our trade with american based companies. Does that not constitute a need for a .com?

That's the thing, you don't need to justify it, if you had got the domain first and then an American Webmart wanted it it would be tough cheese, because you got there first. Except you didn't and someone else registered it before you, so it's hard cheese for you.

Original post is asking whether it is defined as Cyber Squatting... I don't mean to come across that he IS a cyber squatter, I just wanted to know where we stood if it was the case

OK, well now you know that he isn't.