Can I get my client this domain?

[twells22]

I am wondering if it is possible to get this domain for my client. I will not use the exact domain but here is an example of the situation.

My client owns Example Insurance Inc. and has since '03. He wants ExampleInsurance.com but it is taken and it has been registered since '98. This domain does not have anything on it at all. Is it possible to obtain this domain?

[DomainsInc]

No.

[twells22]

Can you explain why?

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by twells22

I am wondering if it is possible to get this domain for my client. I will not use the exact domain but here is an example of the situation.

My client owns Example Insurance Inc. and has since '03. He wants ExampleInsurance.com but it is taken and it has been registered since '98. This domain does not have anything on it at all. Is it possible to obtain this domain?

"Obtain" as in purchase?

Sure, if the owner wants to sell and your client agrees to the price.

[DomainsInc]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

"Obtain" as in purchase?

Sure, if the owner wants to sell and your client agrees to the price.

I assume he doesn't want to pay for it as this is posted in the legal section.

Originally Posted by twells22

Can you explain why?

I'm no lawyer but I can't imagine any lawyer thinking you could obtain this domain since the business didn't exist until 5 years later. Now if you wanted to purchase this from the owner, of course you could do that but not sure why you would post that in the legal section.

[twells22]

I know I can purchase it but since the domain isn't being used I was just wondering.

[Dave Zan]

It is actually possible. And it's also possible the registrant will dispute your
client's claims and even sue him/her if s/he feels like it.

Remember the golden rule. And no, it's not he who has the gold makes the
rules.

[wmloz]

I don't see how you could possibly get this short of buying the name. You won't strong arm it from him with any legal basis.

Oh, and my dad's golden rule? Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you have, the less shit you eat. Might not quite work here though!

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by wmloz

Oh, and my dad's golden rule? Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you have, the less shit you eat. Might not quite work here though!

And someone forgot to bring the bread, again.

Originally Posted by twells22

I know I can purchase it but since the domain isn't being used I was just wondering.

I have land that is not being used/lived on. That does not give anyone the right to build or "sqaut" on the land.

View this as real estate because it is, in essence.

My land(s) are recorded and deeded to me in the Clerk of Courts office where the property is located.

Domains have a WHOIS database. This is the deed to that property rights.

If you or your client's name is not on it, then you don't own it...someone else does.

Ask yourself this...How many domains do you own? How many are websites? How many are parked? If you are not using them (parked) then who can claim them?

[DomainsInc]

Just a cheapskate wanting something for nothing. Makes me think though, in terms of prior use if a domain was regged in 98 but dropped so the whois says 2007. I would hope the law would agree that it doesn't change anything.

[stock_post]

I would like to say your client actually stole the idea of some one that registered a url.

And as if that is not enough you want to steel his/her domain name from them.

Knowing, that they got the idea way ahead of your client ever thought about that business.

If this is not considered a plan to rob some one what would fall in that category?

This is just a cruel/heartless thought, in my opinion!

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

Just a cheapskate wanting something for nothing.

Heh, the OP's client is going to have to spend money anyway if they really
want to try to get that domain name.

Twells22, you more or less got a gauge of people's opinions of such. Good
luck to both of you on making the "right" decision, hopefully one where it's
a win-win for all parties concerned.

[Zoobar]

Prior registration and non-use (no confusion), I can't see your client being successful.

[hugegrowth]

If it was regged in 98 it's probably a generic insurance term, and there are probably other companies out there called 'Example Insurance', and other companies using the term in their advertising or website. I doubt this is a TM issue at all. A reverse hijack attempt could get ugly. If it was regged in 98 the owner is probably a seasoned domainer that could easily fight and likely win a dispute. Best way to get the domain is offer to buy it, otherwise get the .net, or .us, or Example-Insurance.com, etc.

[twells22]

Wow, first time I have seen people become complete asses on here, Zoobar, stock_post, and DomainsInc. To you guys, it was just a question. I have never even looked into domain laws. I have just heard of people getting in law suits over domain trademarks. And no it's not a generic insurance name, he is the only one with the name registered for business so I though he might have something. Sorry, I now know to steer clear of the legals section.

[hugegrowth]

why do you think someone regged the name in '98 if it wasn't somewhat generic? if the company name didn't exist then, there must be a reason why this person would have taken the name. a valid question I think.

[Jagusa]

If your client holds a registered trademark for the exact phrase used, it would provide considerable leverage in the domain's acquisition.

[carlton]

Originally Posted by twells22

Wow, first time I have seen people become complete asses on here.

I don't think you realize that the nature of your question leads down one path, but I understand that wasn't your intention. If one is not willing to buy the name from the original registrant, then that presumes using leverage to take it away. Given the details you provided in the original post, then that equates to reverse domain name hijacking because there exists no legitimate grounds for your client to obtain the domain (based on details provided). And that's why everyone reacted as they did.

It may help to know that domain investors have had to spend money and time defending their assets against those who try to steal domains by exploiting legit processes like UDRP. Hope this helps provide some context.

[stock_post]

You started with a bad Idea and I game my personal opinion of your bad thought.

I stand by my statement and I don’t like people do the same to me.
I have 600+ names and I want to be ass for people like you.

Not ready to give up my names for some ass

[acesfull]

Originally Posted by hugegrowth

why do you think someone regged the name in '98 if it wasn't somewhat generic? if the company name didn't exist then, there must be a reason why this person would have taken the name. a valid question I think.

"Brandable" names are often registered for PPC sites or for development, or even to sell, without an already-existing company using that name, which are actually "good-faith" registrations, since the intent was to steer clear of trademark infringements and existing business names.

Some domainers come up with coined or made-up words, like MONEYTOPIA or CASHMANIA. OR, construct two-word domains with American-sounding words and names (like American, National, Federal, Washington, Lincoln, Interstate, etc.) and associate them with business terms, like Bank, Finance, Loans, HomeMortgage, Insurance etc.

So, when a new company forms, and want's to use a "brandable-type" name, using common words that work well together (like AcmeInsurance.com, USAInsurance.com and LincolnInsurance.com) ,those types of names are likely going to be registered.

As an alternative, the new company needing a web address can come up with a truly distinctive name, like RobertJohnsonInsurance.com, but they are often upset when the domain they originally wanted, that they "thought-up" is registered.

It's bad enough when a domainer registers a domain in "good faith," not knowing there was a company somewhere using that name, that may or may not have trademark rights to the domain, and then making a challenge to it's ownership - but it's pathetic when someone comes along, creating their identity after your domain was registered and then they start making false claims and threats.

It appears that twells22 may have been heading in that direction, and that's why so many here are getting pissed off. The "good domainers" (those who intentially try to acquire only non-infringing domains) are often outraged when false claims are made - in other words, reverse domain hijacking attempts.

It seems the common Joe still has misperceptions about domains. They often compare a domain's value with the cost of a registration fee. They think anyone who has domains for sale is a "cybersquatter." They think a PPC landing page is "not really being used for anything." And they often think they have superior rights to such domains, and that they should be handed over for a small fee. Those are the people that often make false claims and try to intimidate you into giving up your domain. Know your rights and fight to protect the ownership of your domains!