Dealing with an unrealistic domain name owner

[MAllie]

Brother, can you spare a domain?

I love this.

 

[allroundguy]

Brother, can you spare a domain?

I love it too!

 

[built4impact]

I'll carefully claim that there are legal moves that can be made that put the domain owner at a serious disadvantage. I can't confirm 100% effectiveness until I'm successful, but I'll gladly share my knowledge and results in the end. In this case, you have
to weigh your cost benefit between legal fees and the asking price of the domain. In my most recent experience I generously offered $800. The owner said he wasn't interested in any less than $25k. I'm not sure what legal fees would cost for what I'm doing, but I wouldn't expect to shell out less than about $3k.

 

[cursal]

Build4impact, how does your legal fees for your projects cause a domain owner to be at a "serious disadvantage." ?

 

[built4impact]

Well, I suspect legal fees would be incurred by one hiring an attorney. My project includes acquiring a domain through our legal system as opposed to traditional commerce. I reckon that would put the owner of the domain at a "serious disadvantage".

 

[Theo]

That can also easily give you the title of reverse hijacker.

 

[built4impact]

That sounds a bit harsh, but if our legal system supports reverse hijacking, so be it.
I never said I think its a good thing, I'm just saying it's quite possible that it can be done. If it can, I'm sure a few members of this site would like to know how to protect their precious assets.

 

[Theo]

No, it does not support reverse hijacking. Unless you have a solid case, setting on a frivolous claim via the WIPO will only get you a denial and the tag "reverse hijacker". There are plenty of such examples - John Berryhill has quoted plenty so far.

 

[ordersomething]

Acro, your message box is full.

 

[Theo]

Just emptied some

 

[built4impact]

You've been around this block longer than I have. I'll discuss details with you privately. Cheers.

 

[MAllie]

But that sounds absolutely horrible! You can't get someone to sell you the domain you want, so you are going to get it by any means you can? Bad enough that there are folks prepared to scam to get domains, but now there is some pseudo-legal route? I think that's appalling and I wouldn't have any business dealings with someone like you. How could I ever trust you if you are prepared to use methods like these? For me this is the dark face of domaining, no matter how clever you make it sound. As someone whose parents once lost their home through this kind of action, your words pierce my soul.

 

[Poohnix]

That's like offering Bill Gates $500 for Microsoft, and take legal action if he doesn't want to sell for that price... ridiculous. "I want to have what you have, but don't want to pay for it" - crying game... the best way to enforce that is to stage a communist revolution, and then noone will have anything that any other would want.
If I don't want to sell for a price, I don't sell... No legal action can force me to sell unless there is a TM involved, and I don't deal with TM domains.

 

[carlton]

That's like offering Bill Gates $500 for Microsoft, and take legal action if he doesn't want to sell for that price... ridiculous. "I want to have what you have, but don't want to pay for it" - crying game... the best way to enforce that is to stage a communist revolution, and then noone will have anything that any other would want.
If I don't want to sell for a price, I don't sell... No legal action can force me to sell unless there is a TM involved, and I don't deal with TM domains.

Excellent post. Sums it up rather well. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[draggar]

This is quite scary. Through your "legal means" someone can just take one of my domains even though I am using it for a legitimate cause?

Sounds like a Snowe Bill supporter talking.

 

[allroundguy]

I think remembering reading something about a country where they had principles of free enterprise ...
Or is imagination ...

 

[Poohnix]

I think remembering reading something about a country where they had principles of free enterprise ...
Or is imagination ...

Free enterprise, but only for lawyers...
Where it's a basic human right to sue anybody for anything. :uhoh:

.

 

[Fatbat]

I keep seeing phrases like "domain owner", "domains that I own", "my domains", etc. I'm guilty of using them too. However, you do all realize that you don't actually OWN any of the domains in your portfolios right? You're simply renting them.

I knew a few people early in the domain game that thought that someone not doing anything with a domain name, not even parking it, was at risk for losing the domain. I know this isn't true, or at least I think it isn't, but I'm trying to figure out where this line of thinking came from?

 

[MAllie]

If you rent a house, there's no law says you have to live in it. If you're happy to go on paying the rent until such time as you have a use for the property, surely that's your business. I can't see the landlord being within his rights to evict you, just because someone else wants to rent it.

 

[allroundguy]

IMHO (imho ...):
We own the right to use the domains we register for lawful purposes, within the boundaries of IANA, ICANN, WIPO etc.
We also have the right not to use them.
Trademarks protect Entrepreneurs - So if a domain is parked within a third party parking system, it can be considered non-entrepreneurial (the parking company is the entrepreneur under it's own TM).
The SLD is then available for trademark application.
Parking can make some money in some cases, but makes You loose any TM rights.