LH.com Lost !

lzy said:

Will provide some good reading I'm sure. Thanks. :]

Click to expand...

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

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/588409.htm



.

Len said:

Funny you should mention this. I have a site specifically set up for the sale of my own domains. Last week I noticed in the log that the site was visited by both Uspto and Wipo within 1 hour of each other!

Click to expand...

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

bmugford said:

This is a load of crap. It is unfortunate the domain was lost, however I think the court battle is exactly what is needed to end this crap once and for all.

I think in these kind of cases, even if the ruling goes against the domain owner, the winner should still be forced to pay fair market value like with eminent domain.

This is just a wholesale theft of a $1M+ domain.

Click to expand...

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!

accentnepal said:

The man who owns 500 acres overlooking Manhattan because he likes the view.

Of course the mega-shopping center is a "better" use. Take that land from the grubby squatter, give it to the fat pigs to whom it should belong. It would save everybody gasoline.

Some of you guys are thinking that there is fairness in the business world....???

Remember inc.mobi? - only difference is that Elequa has the money to fight back. And with his huge stake in short domains he probably needs to push this as far as the Supreme Court, if need be. This may be what sets the table for the future.

Click to expand...

Fifth Amendment to US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

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.

seems wipo doesn't like the guy. Hopefully his other domains won't get pillaged now.

a simple site about LederHosen might have saved his domain.

how much is it to trademark a lll.com. I have 2 that are just random letters (no trademark appears)?

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 ....???

Mike said:

Isn't this type of magic number split what Google is doing to us already? If you have more domains parked or inactive than developed and with truly unique content, you're considered a "hoarder" and get slammed by Google?
M.

Click to expand...

That is a new one to me. Have not noticed any problem with my websites.

gazzip said:

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

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/588409.htm



.

Click to expand...

Now I've seen everything.

...Bad faith because Respondent has made no use of the domain name since it registered the domain name in 1999.

Reps added! :tu: :great:

lzy said:

Now I've seen everything.

...Bad faith because Respondent has made no use of the domain name since it registered the domain name in 1999.

Reps added! :tu: :great:

Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll find that other one, I think it was a place in Switzerland I visited years ago, but I can't remember the name right now

I'm just checking the map to jog my memory !


.

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.”).

This kind of shit annoys the **** out of me.

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.

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...

Don't forget that wipo is an arbitration procedure, so it's pretty much at the discretion of the panelists.

Ctack said:

This kind of shit annoys the **** out of me.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

scabies said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

M.

Mike said:

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.

M.

Click to expand...

:sold:

Mike said:

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.

M.

Click to expand...

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.

bmugford said:

Exactly, like I said earlier. Just like eminent domain. If they want to take your property they have to pay fair market value.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

oddjob said:

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.

Click to expand...

If every home was owned by one guy in that city, then nobody would live there any nobody would even care.

Domains aren't business? Well they are a $1x,xxx,xxx,xxx market. That is bigger than some other niche business markets I could name off.

And towards that last comment... is there any limit too how much real estate one can own?

bfluid said:

If every home was owned by one guy in that city, then nobody would live there any nobody would even care.

Domains aren't business? Well they are a $1x,xxx,xxx,xxx market. That is bigger than some other niche business markets I could name off.

And towards that last comment... is there any limit too how much real estate one can own?

Click to expand...

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.

I am shocked. I would be interested in following the development.

If I were elequa I would get all my oil buddies together and buy the company, fire everyone, dissect it and park the planes in my backyard before I gave up the name.

WIPO you have lost sooo much credit in the eyes of many domainers.. WTF are you thinking? Yeah, I would'nt be surprised if they were bribed or had uterior motives.

staffjam said:

No appeal process?

Click to expand...

Currently none except to dispute it in a court of competent jurisdiction, which
is in the U.S. in this case.

npcomplete said:

It means that nobody can ever truly own rights to property of any kind.

Click to expand...

You know, I recently read an interesting take from a lawyer on such. He said
that nowadays it's not a question of who owns what, but what rights all the
involved parties have agreed upon for that particular item.

Your rights are only as good as your ability to enforce it. Unfortunately rights
are challenged every other day, especially by those who seem to be in much
greater position to do so.

Should Elequa have changed lawyers?

gazzip said:

Sucks big time that something so generic can be TMarked

Click to expand...

IBM...AOL...GE...are they not trademarks as well despite being generic letters,
long before domain names came into existence?

Folks, try not to confuse "law" with justice. Such things are intended to try to
resolve disputes without resorting to bloodshed, although they can be abused
just like everything else in life.