Well I found one of them but when I just checked the whois it looks like he still owns it, he must have fought the case and won
My mistake Izy, it was the NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM and not WIPO (I'm not sure what the difference is TBH)
"The Panel finds that Respondent has registered the <colchester.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent has made no use of the domain name since it registered the domain name in 1999"
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the <colchester.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
There should be a major verdict to protect the domain owner. And I would like to see the owner of LH.com go all the way to set a starndard to protect us
Owners are frequently not given just compensation for the properties in eminent domain cases. I agree with your intent, but the trend is that this just compensation simply does not happen in practice!
The "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment only applies in the US, but "eminent domain-like" arguments (similar to the Fifth Amendment eminent domain example) now seem to be taking place on a worldwide scale. In the US the "takings clause" is routinely abused using arguments similar to the example in the post by accentnepal. The part about " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" has been twisted to make subtle distincions between "legitimate use" and "better use". The part about "public use" in the past meant roads, bridges, etc., where the government has *always* had the right of eminent domain (with just compensation)... "public use" has now been twisted to mean "shopping malls" as opposed to roads, bridges, etc. (see the wrongly decided "Kelo decision" from the Supreme court).
This is a frightening trend on a world scale. It means that nobody can ever truly own rights to property of any kind. Let's avoid arguments about "property" and "ownership", and simply agree that we do own the *rights* to renew a domain name, and can sell those rights. That shopping mall example that used eminent domain to acquire the property could in principle be applied to the new mall owner, and some *other* buyer could propose a use that supplies an even greater tax base, thereby taking away the property from the mall owner. The subtle differentiation between "legitimate use" and "better use" of private property is a truly slippery slope, and WIPO is at the forefront of this abuse.
... in other words: WIPO sucks, and is now making decisions based on "legitimate use" and "better use", setting themselves up as the sole arbiter of quality of use.
__________________
.
(Just another mathematician obsessed with proving P != NP -- that is a math joke for job security)
Smile! In a few short years you will realize that these are the good old days!
I think Elequa will fight this as far as is needed - he is one of, if not the, largest holder of short domains in the world and if he lets this stand he will be facing a long line of companies trying to take every domain he owns. He has no choice but to fight, and fortunately he appears to have the resources to do so. I hope he gets the best attorneys, the results of this case may set the precedent for years to come.
Doni makes an important point - there is a large segment of the public that does not appreciate what we are doing, just as those of wealth are always considered hoarders. Revolutions can and do sometimes take away their assets (although the "distribution to the poor" part does not usually seem to follow.) It is a whole lot easier to steal than to earn, and easier still if one can place a cloak of respectability around oneself.
BTW, DNF seems to be mostly ignoring this topic ....???
That is a new one to me. Have not noticed any problem with my websites.
This part is nuts IMO you do not have to predate the reg. So I can sit look at a domain and say wow LL.com parked I am going to create an LLC, $400 get a tm $400 and then UDRP LL.com totally insane IMO
Moreover, the Panel notes, Complainant’s rights in the LH mark need not predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in order to satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Javacool Software Dev., LLC v. Elbanhawy Invs., FA 836772 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2007) (holding that a complainant need not show that its rights in its mark predate the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in order to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also CDG v. WSM Domains, FA 933942 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2007) (“A plain reading of ¶ 4(a)(i) imposes no burden on a Complainant to demonstrate that it has either exclusive right to a mark or that such rights predate the registration of a domain name.”).
We need to take some major steps let the general public know about what is going on. We can not be silent here. The recent news of sales like pizza.com made national headlines, and the general public are beginning to become aware that certain domains are extremely value personal property.
People will be pissed off when they find out that a major multinational has ripped off an individual to this magnitude.
Please start submitting this story everywhere, slashdot, digg... newpapers etc..
I wouldn't even mind we organized a one day boycott of lufthansa... i would forward every traffic domain i owned to a anti-lufthansa page.
__________________ Have $200 in revenue/monthly and/or 200 domains? PM me for a SedoPro code!
IMO LL.coms .net or .orgs are really dangerous domains to buy even LLL
unless its for personal use...n not for reselling purposes then it shud be safe.one of my fren have a LL.org or .net i forgot which but he also lose that name in wipo coz he offered that domain for sale.
this is making us domainers a hard time .. imagine all the countries going tru wipo to take back their cctld extension like malaysia vs my.com or usa vs usa.com it will simply be endless...
The general public isn't going to rally behind domain squatters. There is a lot of animosity towards domainers, especially among the Slashdot crowd because most of them at one point or another have went looking for domains for legitimate projects only to find they're all being squatted on.
I see your point, but this isn't a squatting issue, anyone with a valuable domain should be concerned about what wipo is doing. If this was a story that mainly affected portfolio holders, like verisign's abuse of monopoly power and raising prices of .com, then yeah i can see a backlash against squatters.
But this is a story that affects all domain owners. It doesn't matter if you own one domain or 100,000. I am willing to bet that the majority of the slashdot crowd own at least one domain.
__________________ Have $200 in revenue/monthly and/or 200 domains? PM me for a SedoPro code!
i find it utterly fascinating that land owners have been looked up to for centuries. In medieval times, they where given titles such as Baron, etc. Nowadays, if someone states that he/she is a land owner, and they are selling land, no one flinches but usually congratulates them to owning land.
Virtual property ownership is obviously not up to the same standards, but seen as a criminal act. Nothing really new in this post - i'm just still amazed with the double standards that are being applied to us.
I put it down to people not understanding the true potential of the internet. A lot of people only come into contact with the internet through their children etc. who only use the internet for simply watching videos' and talking to friends. This gives the majority of people, in our societies which hold position the idea that the internet is a thing that's just for kids and holds little merit in our modern day society.
The point of the WIPO is to protect intellectual property, if someone is squatting on a TM domain they shouldn't get $1 for it. The WIPO shouldn't force TM holders to compensate squatters, they should just stop making stupid decisions and being a vessel for reverse hijacking.
__________________ Post domains you'd like to push to auction at Sedo™!
Squatting is such a vague term anyways. Domains should be equal to owning physical property and/or land. If I am Century21 or ReMax and I want to buy up 5,000 acres somewhere for $1000 an acre, and then turn around and build a sub-division on it, in a prime location. And then turn around a year later and build houses on that land, and sell each acre for $30,000 an acre, is this fair. You're damn right it's fair!!
So why shouldn't I or anyone be able to horde (like domi said) 1,000 domains and then use them solely for redirecting traffic. This makes your main developed site get more traffic, and in turn worth more.
Billboards are a superb example for redirection. You are sitting at a red light and look up and see a McDonald's billboard. For some reason you become slightly hungry, and a mile down the road, you turn in to buy some food. Is this billboard a waste. To some people it is. But for the people that are being paid by McDonald's to lease that sign for that month would disagree.
For the record.......... I am a horder of hundreds of names and I'm proud of it. I just wish I jumped on the band wagon 10 years ago. Someday, 10 years from now, new-comers to the domain world will say the same thing.
The idea of TM holders being able to take domains which could mean anything is scary. That said, hoarding domain names is a waste and I think bringing in some rules in regards to the quantity an individual or company can own wouldn't be a bad idea (although maybe impossible to police).
If we're using real world analogies, imagine every home in a city is owned by one individual who refuses to sell any of them, even for fair prices.
Although domains aren't businesses, it's also somewhat anti-competitive for one individual to own too many domain names of a particular type imo.
I think if domainers want their assets to be treated as legitimate assets then their needs to be some rules brought in to introduce balance and fairness.
Well, re. the city analogy, you're saying people wouldn't want to live there if that was where the nice houses, jobs and opportunities were? (Doesn't really equate of course, but in terms of a domain, all the good names). Instead you're forced to rent or live on the outskirts of the city because one rich individual owns all the good property. He won't sell it either, even though he isn't putting it to good use. You wouldn't care?
Domain names themselves aren't a business, even if domaining can be one.
Well, the last comment was mainly in regards to anti-competitiveness (regarding which there ARE rules).
But there are also limits to how much realestate can be owned in the real world - think of an airport. Single carriers aren't usually allowed to buy or rent all the terminals because this stifles competition. The same applies to other industries in the real world.
Even if we equate domain names to houses there are practical limits. If a corporation decided to buy half the available houses in a city there would be an outcry and they would be legislated against.
If domainers want their property to be respected there needs to be limits to how many domains can be owned imo.
