What do experienced domainers think?

[tpruby]

An up and coming actor for whatever reason has not registered there .com name. Are they absolutely going to hit it big and become famous and successful?...pure speculation.

If I were to register the name and then park it and keep it for as long or until such time that the actor sends the proverbial " letter" asking for the name to be transferred over to them....and at that possible future time, I willingly turn the name over to them without even blinking....does this seem like an alright thing to do....or does the name have to remain unregistered forever and ever until someone with that exact name registers it??

Does anyone have an opinion? I ran a test on a blog with the name, and sure enough people do search for this person and I am going to make parking revenue.

The key to my question is, I am going to turn the name over when asked, if lots of time passes, I may turn it into a fan site.

I ask, for the simple reason, if this is so morally reprehensible,( cybersquat) why on earth is there not a law that only a person with that exact name can register it legally?

 

[DNQuest.com]

People speed all the time time, is everyone caught? Nope.

I agree the domain business, especially parking, needs to be cleaned up. Someone needs to go after these big guys. But nothing will ever get done until someone with big backing steps up to the plate. Maybe this is just thr first round with Microsoft going after the guys in Indiana . They need to go after the parking programs. Cut off the money and squatting dwindles down.

Registering TM domains and using them in bad faith is illegal. We all know that. But one line did catch my eye... "with no inflated sellers fee." But still a fee. This means your intentions is to gain from the domain. Yes, that is squatting.

jh3 - listen to him and you go down faster into the depths of of squatting. Some people have low or no morals and the only thing that matters is money regardless of how it is earn. You want respect in the domain business, then do everything according to established laws.

On another forum, someone stated cybersquatting is not illegal, it goes to show his ethics. We each choose our own path. But if you make statements which ultimately would hurt us as a industry, you will be called out. And believe me, I have no problems calling people what they are... cybersquatters. If they don't like it, too bad, then stop cybersquatting.

 

[Ja$on]

You don't need respect in this business, if you have a domain someone wants they will buy it, plain and simple.

I would also appreciate you not use my name and the words "low morals" as it insinuates you know me and clearly you don't.

 

[Keral_Patel]

Best advice is if you have already registered it then put some blog or some nice template on it. And gift it to the actor with that name.

Don't even ask for the money. Just give it like that. If he hits it big time someday he might remember you and pay you for your deeds.

If he doesn't then also there is nothing lost. But most of the time you get good results when you do good to others.

Thanks.

 

[Badger]

How can you start a thread, ask a specific question, then when someone answers state that it was a rhetorical question? We even waste time by posting it...

Im sure he meant hypothetical instead of it being in rhetoric... Forums and rhetoric dont generally work... Unless your intent was a very small forum of 1..

Phil makes a good point. In answer to him, as someone whos just finished a long and arduous negotiation cycle with the top level ad abritrators, focus is very much on not sub syndicating your AFD or Y! domain match feed to any clear TM violating names. In fact our signed agreement clearly states this and lists the penalties should we be in breach of this.

Ref: the OP. There is no doubt that if this guy becomes famous and wants his domain then get it he shall. Protection to you is zero and there are many cases of celebs reclaiming their name from cybersquatters. Im sure Philip and John and Jesse will know all of them but I can tell you that BruceSpringsteen took back his name from a fan site about him which I believe made no money and was purely a shrine to him - so your parked money spinner stands no chance.

 

[briman1970]

You don't need respect in this business, if you have a domain someone wants they will buy it, plain and simple.

I don't agree, and I'll tell you why. If you have a domain and another party believes they are entitled to that domain, there are multiple ways for them to acquire it without having to pay you. If they can prove you are infringing upon their brand or service mark, you may get a nice big label slapped on your head. If they are particularly malicious, you may also get the rug pulled out from under your feet as well.

 

[Ja$on]

Once again, someone reading too much into a comment. My statement had nothing to do with cybersquatting.

 

[DNQuest.com]

make a fan site, throw up a bunch of affiliates and then when the day comes give it back.

Easy peasy.

This statement is encouragement of cybersquatting.

 

[Kate]

This statement is encouragement of cybersquatting.

Yes it is, because the fan site is just a blanket to make money on the name, and not bona fide use of a domain. That is not foolproof protection at all.

 

[Ja$on]

Bona fide use of the domain? Fan site is not a good use?

As you can see I have been around a while, I gave my advice, take it or leave it, I couldn't care less.

 

[Dave_Z]

Fan site is not a good use?

Not if it shows any hint of commercial use. I guess you've been lucky so far.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Bona fide use of the domain? Fan site is not a good use?

a true fansite is good faith usage, if you read any of my posts at all, you will see I am 100% behind that...


"make a fan site, throw up a bunch of affiliates and then when the day comes give it back.

Easy peasy. "


But your suggested usage is not a bona fide offering of goods/services, it is a comercial venture, that is not a true fansite.

One of my favorite sayings: "It's better to be luck than good"

 

[Ja$on]

One of my favorite sayings: "It's better to be luck than good"

better to be luck that good? huh? what if you are bad luck?

I have seen tons of fan sites with google adsense, haven't you? As long as the site has a reasonable amount of content I don't see anything wrong with a few ads.

 

[DNQuest.com]

better to be luck that good? huh? what if you are bad luck?

I have seen tons of fan sites with google adsense, haven't you? As long as the site has a reasonable amount of content I don't see anything wrong with a few ads.

I see people speeding in excess of 10mph over the speed limit, does that mean what they are doing is legal since no one is stopping them?

Don't confuse getting away with something as a legal right. I think many celebs either don't care or don't know what is going on with the domain. There is no suc thing as TM police, the alleged TM holder must take a proactive stance in defending their mark. Just because they don't means somebody is lucky to continue their cybersquatting.

 

[tpruby]

For the record, I dumped the name and was able to get a refund...thanks everyone for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[jberryhill]

I ask, for the simple reason, if this is so morally reprehensible,( cybersquat) why on earth is there not a law that only a person with that exact name can register it legally?

What makes you believe there isn't one?

15 U.S.C. 1129:


1129. Cyberpiracy protections for individuals

(1) In general

(A) Civil liability
Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.

(B) Exception
A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under title 17, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.

(2) Remedies
In any civil action brought under paragraph (1), a court may award injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The court may also, in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.

(3) Definition
In this section, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1127).

(4) Effective date
This section shall apply to domain names registered on or after November 29, 1999.

 

[DNQuest.com]

oh snap!