Domain King and BITCH.COM C&Ds

[seeker]

Are you serious? Whenever you spearhead or take on an initiative you are opening pandora's box yourself. I'm afraid you're not really understanding the full issue. Any average domainer would certainly need not explain these type of matters, nor should they become public. But one could easily argue that this domainer has put himself out there for a cause, therefore making this more of a public matter.

I see...
so you are telling me what I should think???
You have concluded I do not understand the full issue.
I can not say that about you because I do not have sufficient data, and I do not cocnlude things about people without full data.
anyhow, for the sake of peace I will not take this to a greater extent unless I have to, in which case, you can rest assured I Know what I am talking about, and can definately defend my case without hypothetical situations....

No witch hunt --- maybe it's better termed a "bitch hunt"? arty:

George, that I do almost every night here in Athens.
and, man, it's been a good catch lately :cheeky:

 

[dodo1]

After all I think it's good that Rick comments on this case directly here on the
forum, because he is not obligated to do so. By doing that he gives us an idea
of his and Howard's motivation. Although I don't agree with everything he says,
I at least understand his arguments now.

 

[Rick Schwartz]

Sooo, The sites who received the letters.. Were they using "bitch.com" to get better placement to steal your traffic? Or, did you just assume they were doing this and went after alot of the good NAMEbitch.coms?

I mean, I see where you are coming from, but did you go after the ones that were doing this or after all of them..

All I want to know.

The ones that were targeted were the ones using MY EXACT DOMAIN NAME in their description. I would have had no problem with anywordbitch.com trying to get their own traffic. But when they tried to CONNECT ME and my domain with their website, (that may or may not be complying with the law) that was over the line.

Here is exactly how they do it with porno.com which is not trademarked. Look at all the listing saying they are porno.com. If they break the law I may be the one that gets the call until I can straighten it out. I am not talking about listings with other words in front of porno.com. Just those using porno.com over and over in an unrelated way.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=po...i=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=11

Now if you do the same search right now with bitch.com I don't think you can see the same use. Yahoo! must be filtering stuff these days. A LOT different than 2003.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bitch.com&sm=Yahoo!+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=1

So the ISSUE is.....should a 3rd party who you don't know be able to incorporate YOUR domain name in THEIR description just so they can increase their traffic? Maybe misleading folks in the process. I think the practice is wrong with or without a trademark. However the only ones we could make an issue of were the ones I held some sort of registered mark on.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

I think he has explained it good enough for me. Although he has had a lot of lawsuits that he lost.

Thanks for explaining your thinking on this subject.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

After all I think it's good that Rick comments on this case directly here on the
forum, because he is not obligated to do so. By doing that he gives us an idea
of his and Howard's motivation. Although I don't agree with everything he says,
I at least understand his arguments now.

I know, no obligation! To think that he would bestow a gift like that!!

What simple joy!!!

And the 'purity' of his and Howard's motivations, yes, Yes, YES!!!!

It is so wonderful, almost a miracle, to have royalty stoop to talk with we lowly peasants; it is so just and so polite for us to defer to his foot as the measurement. That is the least we can do, but bowing and scraping would also be fitting.

I nearly fainted at his candor and the breathtaking brilliance of his argument.

To brush greatness like that is like nothing I have ever experienced. Royalty worship is so much more lovely than celebrity worship.

 

[GeorgeK]

Re-read what your C&D wrote -- it was not going after content, nor did it say that the remedy was to change the description. It was either give up the domain or pay money. Voyuer.com was the same.

Furthermore, we have Archive.org, which can actually show us the source code of Blairbitch.com at around the time of your C&D:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.blairbitch.com/

The Dec. 3, 2002 archive (closest to the January 10, 2003 C&D date) is unavailable as I type this. However, the November 24, 2002 one is available.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021124124213/http://blairbitch.com/

The home page has metatags for keywords and description of:

meta name="keywords" content="horror, comedy, parody, spoof, funny, linda blair, monster, movie, Scott LaRose, Allan Murray, Blair Bitch, Blair Witch, outrageous, video, film, Project"

meta name="description" content="The Blair Bitch Project is a twenty minute, over the edge, outrageous parody of The Blair Witch Project starring Linda Blair."

Searching the source code of that homepage for "bitch.com" shows it only being used in the string "blairbitch.com". Same goes for the internal pages I checked:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030206080235/blairbitch.com/home.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020205205532/blairbitch.com/pages/bitchology.html

(no time to check every internal page)

Receivers of C&Ds can't read your mind (especially your mind two and a half years later) --- they can only read what was actually sent.

http://www.dnjournal.com/columns/cover020204.htm

"Like hijacking domains, extortion, stealing content and worse. We can call them crooks because that is exactly what they are. Then we have the infringers that try and extort money from companies and that practice gives us all a bad name."

On the one hand, we have Rick's WORDS decrying "corporate bullies" for trying to "extort money" for domains, and on the other hand we have Rick's ACTIONS on the voyuer.com and blairbitch.com matters.

Similarly, we have Rick's WORDS decrying critics of his, describing them:

"Schwartz believes that “making statements like that makes me an unpopular guy among every infringer, cyber squatter, hijacker and every other wrong doer. There is a small but vocal group that never misses an opportunity to say something nasty or make some crap up about me. So when you hear the attacks, look a little deeper and you usually find a motive.”

Yet, we have Rick's BEHAVIOUR and ACTIONS, having lost 4 UDRPs:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=97568

including 3 as a respondent.

I don't think I need to remind folks about how "proof" was going to be presented that DomainRoundtable stole their idea:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?p=563703#post563703

and how no proof was ever shown (and indeed it was even demonstrated that the concept was not novel, that a domain name conference had even been held in NYC in 2002 by others).

In conclusion, this post exists to help gentle readers "look a little deeper", and see that perhaps there is a MOTIVE for Rick's WORDS. His ACTIONS speak volumes.

 

[Fearless]

Where are the cult members when you need them? Come on, help the King out.

 

[GeorgeK]

The "posse" has ridden into the sunset....or are trying to find their King some clothes....

Rick does raise a valid concern about use of metatags, etc. to infringe on trademarks. You can see such a C&D at:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1191

"In the operation of your World Wide Web Site under the domain name www.ham-let.com, your company is using metatags consisting of the trademarks Cajon and Swagelok that are owned and registered by Swaglok. A copy of your web page's source view dated March 17, 2004 is attached, and clearly shows these trademarks used as "keywords" included in your site."

But, that had no resemblance whatsoever to the C&D he had sent in this matter:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/acpa/notice.cgi?NoticeID=526

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

The ones that were targeted were the ones using MY EXACT DOMAIN NAME in their description. I would have had no problem with anywordbitch.com trying to get their own traffic. But when they tried to CONNECT ME and my domain with their website, (that may or may not be complying with the law) that was over the line.

Here is exactly how they do it with porno.com which is not trademarked. Look at all the listing saying they are porno.com. If they break the law I may be the one that gets the call until I can straighten it out. I am not talking about listings with other words in front of porno.com. Just those using porno.com over and over in an unrelated way.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=po...i=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=11

Now if you do the same search right now with bitch.com I don't think you can see the same use. Yahoo! must be filtering stuff these days. A LOT different than 2003.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bitch.com&sm=Yahoo!+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=1

So the ISSUE is.....should a 3rd party who you don't know be able to incorporate YOUR domain name in THEIR description just so they can increase their traffic? Maybe misleading folks in the process. I think the practice is wrong with or without a trademark. However the only ones we could make an issue of were the ones I held some sort of registered mark on.

Sure, why the heck not? A 3rd party can say whatever they want, it's called free speech and free enterprise.

You "think the practice is wrong...?"

OK, but since when were your thoughts the standard of the land? Since when was your foot the standard of measurement?

If you don't have trademark rights.. what EXACTLY do you have?

Your FOOT?!!

 

[BLazeD]

What does using a domain name in a site description have to do with taking away their domain name for trademark/IP infringement?

Is anyone else missing the link between what would seem to be some sort of copyright/IP claim (cease using my DN on your site and pay me damages/money) and forcing them to give up the domain name on which that content/description is posted?

Have UDRP's been filed against sites without the word bitch in their domain name?

When someone posts a copyrighted article on their website, do the owners of the copyright go after their domain name or seek damages? They seek damages. In this case you dont even have any Intellectual Property protection to back you up though.

There is no IP in bitch.com, therefore other people are free to use it. Even if there was protection - taking their domain name is not a proper remedy. Damages and cessation would be the proper remedy as with other IP cases. Site content and domain name are different things.

I agree somewhat with what you are trying to do in opening up a new level of IP protection where a site attempts to pass itself off as another, but think it is being gone about in the wrong way.

 

[JMJ]

Personally I don't know Rick but I do know of him nor have I had any dealings with him good or bad. All I can go on is what I would do if I received one in this case and it would either be "no response" or it would have been a short little reply telling them what they could do with it.

Now if a second C&D was sent or "something stronger" (Which is what should have been sent the first time as others have stated but hey I'm no lawyer or an accountant but I could see how double the work could equal double the billing. Not that this is the case here but I'm sure it's been done before by someone.) pointing out what I was doing wrong then I would probably have removed the content deleted the email and went about my merry little way.

End result of all of this if it would have been a little extra traffic to your domain name, a little less to mine, alot of your money spent and I would still have my domain.

A little SEO lesson for those who like walking on the wild side. Don't use comma's between your keywords since most SE's like it like that. Remove the . and what do you get? Two words bitch com

Either way goodluck getting on the first page in front of the 57,000 other results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=com.netscape:en-US&sa=G&biw=974&q="bitch.com"
Rick you might want to take a gander at it aswell because it looks like you have some more money to spend.

 

[labrocca]

http://www.answers.com/hypocrisy&r=67

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. An act or instance of such falseness.

Sad that someone so popular in the domain industry has these type of morals. Rick I bet one day we meet and I will be sure to ask you about how you really feel about this type of thing. I want to look in your eyes when you are spewing your tales.

Shame on you buddy...you should really know better.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

Why don't you King haters start your own start your own forum and devote it to talking about him? Call it the DomainKingforum.com and you can talk on there all you want?

Also I'm not taking sides here, as I think both sides have faults.

 

[GeorgeK]

In a similar vein, an interesting story in today's NY Times about Rentamark:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/business/04stealth.html?

"Can a man own a word? And can he sue to keep other people from using it?

Over the last few years, Leo Stoller has written dozens of letters to companies and organizations and individuals stating that he owns the trademark to "stealth." He has threatened to sue people who have used the word without his permission. In some cases, he has offered to drop objections in exchange for thousands of dollars. And in a few of those instances, people or companies have paid up. "

(more in the full article) See:

http://www.rentamark.com/Famous_Marks/famous_marks.html

for a list of some of their "marks", lol. They need a better logo generator. arty:

 

[mole]

Why don't you King haters start your own start your own forum and devote it to talking about him?

Disneyland.com is taken :dead:

 

[Mr. Deleted]

Disneyland.com is taken :dead:

Then buy LAND.com

http://whois.sc/land.com

Land Title Agency, Inc.
Independence, OH

Created: 1993-04-29
Expires: 2009-04-30

Website Status: not active

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Why don't you King haters start your own start your own forum and devote it to talking about him? Call it the DomainKingforum.com and you can talk on there all you want?

Also I'm not taking sides here, as I think both sides have faults.

Where do you see any hate in this thread?

It isn't hate to challenge someone's statements, particularly when those challenges are backed up with fact and logic.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

In a similar vein, an interesting story in today's NY Times about Rentamark:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/business/04stealth.html?

"Can a man own a word? And can he sue to keep other people from using it?

Over the last few years, Leo Stoller has written dozens of letters to companies and organizations and individuals stating that he owns the trademark to "stealth." He has threatened to sue people who have used the word without his permission. In some cases, he has offered to drop objections in exchange for thousands of dollars. And in a few of those instances, people or companies have paid up. "

(more in the full article) See:

http://www.rentamark.com/Famous_Marks/famous_marks.html

for a list of some of their "marks", lol. They need a better logo generator. arty:

And they need a designer to make all their so-called logos to show up!

stealthmall.com AVAILABLE

he is sueing everyone about this, and does not even own that name?

And daddy, it is not intented to offend, I know a lot of people don't like him and I was just asking, why don't you create your own site about him. I am not getting in the middle of this. Both those that love and those that don't like, or even hate him, all have a valid point. He made millions. He bullied people. He is not the kind of guy I'd want to hang out with, but I would listen to his advise.

Joe

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

He is not the kind of guy I'd want to hang out with, but I would listen to his advise.

Joe

Joe,

That is a disconnect which I do not understand.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

I'm saying with his experience, I could learn from him here on the forum, but I would not go out on the town with a bully. He has wisdom, but in some things, I do disagree with him.

I was Amish, and when I left, I left the bad behind, and if you want to know about that, go to www.amishabuse.com, BUT I had to remember all the good that my heritage had. I guess what I'm saying is there is good in most people, if we look hard enough, we can find that good.