cybersquatting on DNF

[DaddyHalbucks]

I am getting very tired of cybersquatting on DNF.

I wish DNF would adopt rules that illegal activity is unwelcome, that famous and registered and distinctive trademarks shall not be bought and sold here.

It seems to me that without a policy, and with a thriving den of thieves, there could be legal exposure for the board owner.

We argued about this matter recently in one of the now closed sales threads. Read about it on this following page, and then please come back to the Legal Issues section to discuss==>

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36482

[DotLeader]

dont you ever give up?

[jberryhill]

I see... and who, exactly, is going to be appointed the judge of whether an offer constitutes cybersquatting or not?

People have odd notions of the word "illegal". Cybersquatting is not a criminal offense, Hal. Cybersquatting is grounds for a private right to a civil action between a trademark owner and a domain name registrant.

"It seems to me that without a policy, and with a thriving den of thieves, there could be legal exposure for the board owner."

Exposure to what?

Would you say the same thing about eBay? Why or why not?

[DaddyHalbucks]

We don't need judges, nor hyperbole.

What DNF should do.. is become more professional, which helps everybody.

Cybersquatting is against the law. It is prohibitted by statute in the US. Does flagrant and repeated cybersquatting, or harboring a den of thieves where cybersquatting is allowed and even encouraged, rise to criminal conduct? Honestly, I don't know, but I would not be surprised if it does.

Could DNF be held liable in a civil court for contributory infringement or civil RICO or other law? Again, I do not know. But DNF could certainly be named in a lawsuit, and that would be a bummer just in itself.

Is eBay different because of its sheer size, where it functions more like an ISP? Again, I don't know.

I would guess Napster is a better analogue, as allegedly one of its main purposes was to facilitate illegal activity.

Why is DNF taking the low road?

[DaddyHalbucks]

dont you ever give up?
+++++++++++++++++++

Nope. I am right about this matter, so why should I quit?

[TopNames.com]

Hey DotComCowboy,

You have a respected attorney in JBerryhill telling you that you're wrong and you still continue to pursue this.

What's the matter with you?

[Sharpy]

.

[ShaunP]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
dont you ever give up?
+++++++++++++++++++

Nope. I am right about this matter, so why should I quit?

Aren't you always right Hal when you start another one of these "Hal versus the world" prolonged discussions?

Shaun

[NameGuy]

uh.. oh...

http://www.dnforum.com/f5/800-1600-daily-visitors-googler-com-thread-36590.html

[DaddyHalbucks]

uh.. oh...

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36590
+++++++++++++++++++++

Yup, it confirms everything I have been saying: DNF is becoming a sleaze pit.

:(

[nicorlino]

hi nameguy!
sorry about that, offer has been withdrawn!
best regards
nico

[jberryhill]

"You have a respected attorney in JBerryhill telling you that you're wrong"

Failure to share my opinion with me does not equate to being wrong.

"Does flagrant and repeated cybersquatting, or harboring a den of thieves where cybersquatting is allowed and even encouraged, rise to criminal conduct."

Of course not. Cybersquatting itself is not criminal conduct.

"Cybersquatting is against the law. It is prohibitted by statute in the US. "

You are confusing apples and orangutans with this "against the law" stuff.

Cybersquatting is not "prohibited by statute". Read the first part of the ACPA....

"A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, [they cybersquat]"

It doesn't say it is "forbidden" or you will go to jail. What it says is that if you do it, then you shall be liable in a civil action - that is, you might have to pay damages and/or give up the domain name.

"DNF could certainly be named in a lawsuit"

My dog can be named in a lawsuit.

"We don't need judges, nor hyperbole. "

Ummm... if your suggestion is that someone figure out whether any given domain sale constitutes cybersquatting, then that someone is going to have to sit there and decide. I call that judging. If you think there is some way to distinguish cybersquatting from non-cybersquatting in the absence of human judgment, I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

Your suggestion renders dnforum more likely to be considered a party to a lawsuit, rather than less likely. To the extent that dnforum moderators engage themselves in "policing" domain name sales, then they are responsible for which ones they allow and which ones they do not.

DNForum is a message board. It is pretty clear that merely functioning as such is the least likely route to being considered liable. If you want DNForum to exercise editorial decisions, then, and only then, do they become responsible for what messages are posted.

Ebay is not an ISP, and I fail to understand why "size" makes a difference in the liability theory you are attempting to make here.

[NameGuy]

Originally posted by nicorlino
hi nameguy!
sorry about that, offer has been withdrawn!
best regards
nico

Sorry to draw attention, then. I understand and respect opinions on both sides of this issue.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Judgment is a part of every single human decision and action from getting up in the morning to drawing a bath to taking a crap.

Do we need judges for every single post and or every single thread? Of course not. That is hyperbole.

Most of the people here are very intelligent, JB included (although he is full of hot air occasionally).

[DaddyHalbucks]

It doesn't say it is "forbidden" or you will go to jail.
++++++++++++++++

No, it says "forbidden" or you can get your ass sued off and be exposed for up to $100,000 per domain..

[DaddyHalbucks]

"Hal versus the world"
+++++++++++++++++++++

May I suggest that you worry less about the PARTIES --and more about the FACTS.

[TopNames.com]

DotComCowboy...can I ask you a question? I understand your point and I avoid domains with possible TM issues as well, but I do not get up on a soap box and preech to other members. I avoid what I choose to avoid and others will do the same...what do you hope to gain from all?

It seems that you are pissing off other members by your greater than thou attitude.

We are all (well, most of us anyway) adults and we can make decisions on our own without being pushed by others. I actually agree with your stance, but I make mine a personal stance and I do not force it on others.

Relax man...have a beer or a woman (or both) and smile. Life's too short.

[DaddyHalbucks]

What I hope to gain is a more professional place to conduct business here at DNF.

I also want all domain owners to have less costs and less legal hassles --and more ironclad title to truly generic domains.

Is that such a bad thing?

[TopNames.com]

No, but you're taking it over the top. It's a bit insulting to be preeched to and you're in a gray area...it's not black and white...it's your opinion. Please, relax and worry about your business and I'll worry about mine. OK?

[actnow]

Top Names is correct. I believe you made your point.

Like Ken, I go out of my way to avoid potential TM problems.

And, I have pointed out a number of times on the available names section to being careful about TM conflicts.

But, everyone has to make their own decisions.

Another point, is that, not all parts of the world honor our TM (American, Canadian, etc). And, under WTO, China should. But, if you go there. You will see a lot of TM infringements.

I agree that the U.S. registered TM are the main TMs infringed upon. But, you can not nor are you authorized to enforce someone elses TM.

I accept and honor your position on TM infringement like many of the members of this forum.

But, you can not preach morality.