Squatting as a favor?

[tmax]

I have a few domain names that are related to my city names.
Some domain names are pretty specific for my community entity.
If they ask me to sell my domain name, I will charge $1k

This is my philosophy.
I am doing them a favor by holding good domain names for them.
I am preventing the others from demanding $15K for their domain names.
With $1,000 price tag, I will be happy, and the buyer should be happy too.
So.. everyone is happy.

Am I justifiable? or am I just another cyber-squatter?
I mean, I can't give them domain names for free.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

No you are not a "cybersquatter,

You are a person who decided to invest your money in domains to make money and you were the first person smart enough to secure them. Should we say if a person decides to buy automobiles and then decides to sell them at a profit is an "automobile squatter"? It's just business and like every other commodity in this world domains can be bought and used/sold to MAKE MONEY!

Wrong. Based on his own writing:

Let's say there is a million dollar company named Nevada_AppleTree[dot]com.
They have just expended there operation and started another website at Ohio_AppleTree[dot]com.
This company is growing fast and it's rumored to expend to Arizona.
I notice that Arizona_AppleTree[dot]com is available.

He clearly intends to squat on what appears to be the fortunes and expansion plans of another, which seem to be known to him and public knowledge. Intent is a huge part of cybersquatting.

 

[reesemley]

Wrong. Based on his own writing:

Intent is a huge part of cybersquatting.

Wrong phrase.

Try "Vision is a huge part of domain investment"

 

[verbster]

He clearly intends to squat on what appears to be the fortunes and expansion plans of another, which seem to be known to him and public knowledge. Intent is a huge part of cybersquatting.

You mean like all of the folks buying up Nintendo Wii names? Don't see anyone calling them names.

 

[donlee]

another cyber squatter, i hope when these two youngsters grow up they start some company and someone squats on their domain name they have TM'ed and charges them a FORTUNE to get it back, bet they would not like them apples.

and btw a car is a freely traded commodity that you have rights to, a domain that is TM'ed or otherwise the intellectual property of others you have NO rights to whether its available or not

 

[floatingworld]

er, i thought everybody here was a cybersquatter!
:wave:

 

[verbster]

a domain that is TM'ed or otherwise the intellectual property of others you have NO rights to whether its available or not

You mean like marvelfilms.com that you posted for sale?

"Stan Lee, chairman of Marvel Comics and Marvel Films, is known to millions as the man whose superheroes propelled Marvel to the pre-eminent position in the comic-book industry."

www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/spidermn/bioMaina.htm

 

[Grrilla]

The thought just occurred to me that companies that TM and brand a generic word are doing, essentially, the same thing to businesses that manufacture products or perform services in industries that are related to the generic term that cybersquatters are doing to TM holders.

How many apple farms , food processors and window manufactures have been short changed on the net due to the thin domain name pickings that have been left in the wake of Apple, Microsoft Windows and their associated businesses grabbing all of the good, available Apple and Windows names? What gives large corporations the right to tie up and own generic words- words that are unelated to their businesses, no less? Are their rights based upon them beating the rush and being the 1st one in line at the TM office? Sounds, suspiciously, familiar, to me. Just about the same as the cybersquatter who beats a companie's slow-poke marketing dept to the registrar to secure rights to a domain name.

It's true that the corporation with the $$'s and legal dept has the resources to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" properly to insure compliance. But does this make the big guy the good guy and the cybersquatter the bad guy? The cybersquatter w/ the modest resources and w/o a lawyer may not be within the law, while the company w/ the TM is but, the results are the same- in both cases the owners are reserving online property for themselves at the expense of others.

Just another angle for approaching the "squatting" issue. Again, I am referring to the tm'ing of generic terms and not made-up ones- which have attributes that, actually, fit the criteria that would qualify them as being intellectual properties.

 

[donlee]

yes i admit i own marvelfilms.com that is THE ONLY trademark infringable domain name that i own, and i mean THE ONLY! and did i try to extort money from marvel for the domain name ? NO! do i have the domain name parked? NO! i am making no money off of the domain name at all. I actually got the domain name to build a TRUE FAN SITE which is a 100% legal way to use the domain. but have since not had the time to do so. so i was going to offer it for sale for someone want to do the same.

SO now that my intentions are clear what do you have to say?

YOu guys are flagrantly showing your intentions are in bad faith.. That you have no morals.. and that you are only a black mark on the industry. I currently own NO typos and NO domains that could be a trademark infringement from what I am aware of, and as I said a FAN SITE is a legitimate use. AND like i said the domain is not even parked so i don't make a dime

 

[Shorty]

Ok, you're willing to sell for $1k by the theory that someone might charge $15k.

What if someone planned to register it and sell it for $30, so they're protected from the people that were going to charge $1k?

I think you've completely lost the plot...if you're genuinely only in it to keep them warm for someone, you'd be willing to let it go for reg fee.

 

[gingeman]

donlee you are making statements so hypocritical I find them laughable. Your self-perception is greatly flawed- your ethics are nowhere near as commendable as you think. Your arguement is basically that you are a good human being as you only look to make about 100 x the reg fee from a name as profit, instead of 1000 x, whilst simultaneously calling others doing the exact same practice as you immature names that do little to help whatever cause it is that you are fighting. You even own tm names yourself "only one" I know I know, I'm sure that seeing as its you, and you're a 'good cybersquatter' nobody will mind. Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself who are you really trying to convince?

p.s. Very interesting points grrilla- I am in complete agreement that there is a great injustice being done through generic word trademarks but I can't see any way of avoiding it. I think in a market where the small-time domainer is competing against corporate resources there will be 'misdemeanors' committed by many, and loopholes allowing exploitation of a system will crop up everywhere.

 

[donlee]

lol are you ignorant? i have one TMed name yes i know, and the name was for a fan site which is NOT cybersquatting.....can you not understand that? that is a LEGITIMATE use of a domain like that. What you guys are doing is EXTORTION, and my ethics are commendable, i think you would find many many many many people on these boards that can attest to that. And how am i a cybersquatter? If Marvel asked me for that one single solitary domain name, i would GIVE it to them no questions asked and would be happy with such a decision. I don't need to look in the mirror I know who I am and what I'm about. Now tell me whats hypoctritical? or can you not understand that i do have a LEGITIMATE reason legally to use that ONE TM'ed domain that i do have.....can you not understand that? these other guys sole reason for squatting is EXTORTION i have a LEGITIMATE use for my domain, both legally and morally.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Squatting is a matter of ethics. The UDRP process takes this in consideration with it's "fair use" provision, and what the arbitrator typically feels the intent of the registrant was upon registration.

Back to the title of the thread, I believe a "favor" would be to register and offer immeidately at cost to the prospect saying you had the forsight they may not have, to keep it out of the hands of a real cybersquatter. In turn, they may (or may not) offer the favor of some premium for doing so. A reward in this case, but totally at their discretion.

Better yet, a favor would be to let the TM owner know they have potentially left unmentioned domains unregistered that could harm them in the future. You could then offer your expertise in finding them and registering them on their behalf for a commission or at retail using your reseller cost difference as profit. In effect in this case you could be offering a valuable service as a consultant rather than being seen as beating them to the punch.

Even if they decide they don't want it after you've registered, or are not going in that direction, you have done a big disfavor. If they don't want it you are out the money and could only recover by trying to profit by selling or parking it which would be a big temptation. If you let it drop, it's then seen on a drop list by someone with even less ethics, who could register and park it on a competitor site or something negative like porn, gambling, or other illegal actvity like phishing. No favor here.

"Squatting as a favor" in my opinion is just trying to rationalize something you at least think in the back of your mind may not be ethical.

Here's another extreme analagy just to make my point:

I notice your child is a little naive and careless walking home from school. They could be setting themself up to be raped, kidnapped, or beaten, right? I'm going to do them a favor by mugging them and only taking some of their money. Therefore, I'm doing them a favor by making them more wary of strangers and being more careful. This way they don't get worse later from somone else who would take all their money or even cause bodily harm. Therefore, you should be thankful I did you the favor of only taking their money, just scaring them, and made them more careful and safer in the future.

...Is this really all that different than the theme of the thread? Put any negative term before "as a favor" and it still sounds silly:
Mugging as a favor?
Murder as a favor?
Beating as a favor?
Extortion as a favor?
Cheating as a favor?

 

[verbster]

i have one TMed name yes i know, and the name was for a fan site which is NOT cybersquatting.....can you not understand that? that is a LEGITIMATE use of a domain like that. What you guys are doing is EXTORTION, and my ethics are commendable,

Can we understand? Why, sure...let's see...

You knowingly registered a Marvel domain. But since you say you registered it for a legit fan site, that's not considered cybersquatting.

Yet instead of turning it into a legit fan site, you offered it up for sale.

For doing that, you still don't see it as cybersquatting. In fact, you claim your ethics are commendable.

Of course you would turn it over to them if they asked; you would have no choice.

I see you are still the owner of marvelfilms.com...perhaps you are only keeping it so someone else won't buy it and try a little friendly extortion?

I look forward to seeing the completed site.

 

[donlee]

lol again you are ignorant, i did NOT reg this domain marvelfilms.com so you have no idea whether i would or would not profit from any sale thereof because i bought this domain, i did NOT reg it. And yes like i said already TWICE i did not have time to turn it into a fan site so i offered it for sale for someone who would do the same. But i have showed good faith by NOT parking or putting a minisite or in any other way commercialized the domain.

Is that to hard for you to understand? you can pick at it to death, but the fact is i bought the domain for a legitimate purpose which i am allowed to do, i did NOT reg this domain with the intent of extorting money from MARVEL.

But i guess this is over your heads

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Keep it civil, folks. The bickering can cool down, :imho:.
-Allan :gl:

 

[donlee]

you have people condoning extortion, the deserve to be banned IMO, but i understand that people have a right to their own oppinion, what i don't understand is why the Mod's are not in this thread telling these guys why they are wrong.
but hey ill quit, just like i said though, if the older more experienced people in this industry don't stand up for whats right, moral, and ethical then we will not have an industry for long.

 

[bluesman]

Your shrill "moral" misunderstanding is totally hilarious, guys. Every business, including the business of product and celeb domain names on the internet, is price-based on what the market will or will not bear. If all company-related and celeb-related names were instead considered sacred, then all such related dot coms would automatically be granted to them the second they established their trademark status. But that's not the way it works at all.

Rather, the internet, since it really started rolling in the last 10 years, is one gigantic land rush. It's dedicated to the universal fairness of first come, first serve - not who happens to be the richest outfit that can try putting pressure on us little guys. If the big guy was asleep at the switch, and some little guy beat him to the punch, that's just too bad for the big guy. That's what's called getting paid for research and speculation work. It might take over a hundred registrations of various names before any one of us might hit the "lotto" of someone paying us for a particular domain name, but that's what it's all about.

That's why I have to laugh when I see a few of you slapping down any poor guy who dares to sell a domain for one cent more than an annual $8 reg fee, and branding him a "cybersquatting vulture." That's absolute nonsense!

 

[Grrilla]

What distinguishes a cybersquatter from a domain name marketer or "domainer" is open to a wide range of interpretation based upon individual ethical principles, that are, in no small part influenced by one's position within the business infrastructure. (eg domain name investor of business owner.) What is seen as a blatant instance of cybersquatting by one, is viewed as an example of the free enterprise system at work, by another. The two camps will, likely, never see eye to eye because the issue revolves around opposing interests and individual value systems.

Although, the question of cybersquatting- who is and who isn't- is a throughline to this discussion, it seems that hypocricy and rationalization are, mainly, responsible for adding the fuel to the fire in this debate.

This is my philosophy.
I am doing them a favor by holding good domain names for them.
I am preventing the others from demanding $15K for their domain names.
With $1,000 price tag, I will be happy, and the buyer should be happy too.
So.. everyone is happy.

This is a total rationalization, IMHO. Call a spade a spade. You registered a name for the purpose of making a $1,000 profit. You are, more than likely, questioning yourself because, either your conscience or the fear of a law suit is bothering you. Despite today's doubts and the second-guessing, you found an available domain name, earlier, that provided you w/ an oppurtunity to capitalize on someone else's product branding. You registered the name for the same reason that every domain name investor registers a name- to make a profit. Although, you would like to make a profit and, at the same time, make everyone happy, you can't have it both ways when your dealing with names that have been branded by someone else and that may be infringing upon their trademark. My suggestion would be to pick a path that doesn't require self-justification, get out of the middle ground, (it's an illusion, anyways), and make sure that the path you've picked is right for you, your needs and your own happiness. Remember that this is a business and not a popularity contest.

donlee, I think that you're taking heat, not, so much, because of your anti-cybersquatting position- there are others, here, who are in accordance with you- but, more as a result of the the strong, somewhat, harsh tone of your criticism of others, who are, apparently, doing something similar to what you, yourself, are doing. The person who posted the following 2 comments would, hardly, be someone that I would expect owning the rights to MarvelFilms.com, a name that, no matter how you cut it, has cybersquatting written all over it:

another example of true cybersquatting, if this is your true philosophy you have absolutely no ethics and no respect for the law, so you are just another black mark on the industry

you have people condoning extortion, the deserve to be banned IMO, but i understand that people have a right to their own oppinion, what i don't understand is why the Mod's are not in this thread telling these guys why they are wrong.
but hey ill quit, just like i said though, if the older more experienced people in this industry don't stand up for whats right, moral, and ethical then we will not have an industry for long.

Regardless of whether or not you have earned, (or will earn), any money from your purchase of MarvelFilms.com, it is more than a small stretch to see the name serving any purpose that is not connected to it's namesake, Marvel Comics. Putting up a fan site or marketing the name as a potential fan site is not, technically, considered to be cybersquatting. However, it might as well be because the result is the same. That is, unless the purpose of the purchase was made by an altruistic indiviual who was a big Spiderman fan who, simply, wanted to make everyone happy. Capitalizing on another's brand name for personal profit is just that, regardless, of what label is applied to it.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck than you can be damn certain that it, likely, is a duck, regardless, of it's size or color.

 

[floatingworld]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck than you can be damn certain that it, likely, is a duck, regardless, of it's size or color.

The dividing line appears to be that of deliberately regging TM names, otherwise I Marvel at the pots calling the kettles black.

 

[donlee]

well i must disagree, i think your interpretation is skewed, and im sorry if my tones are harsh, but i call it like i see it just like your duck is a duck reference. There is no reasonable way anyone with morals can call extorsion - free enterprize, capitalism, or any combination thereof. Furthermore what you are still no understanding is that I have NOT tried to capitalize on my domain. That is what you guys are not understanding your said:

"capitalizing on another's brand name for personal profit is just that, regardless, of what label is applied to it"

That my friend is what you guys are not understanding, I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT monetize or commercially profit from my domain name. But until you can understand that I guess I could just talk myself blue in the face but I will spare you all the trouble.

I have no need being in a conversation with people justifying extorsion. The man that started the thread has no intention of using the domains he is "talking about" registering for any other reason than to EXTORT money. I understand this got turned on me and I feel i have defended myself 100%. I just feel bad for anyone that tries to construe an act of EXTORTION into an acceptable business practice no matter how they see it.