How Much Is Enough $.. Does It Need To Really Hurt The Buyer For You To Feel Happy?

[M.U.]

LOL. its always different when it comes to one self.

"No, it wouldnt happen to me because Im not a domain reseller... btw... are you interested in buying my 4L.com" thanks for the laugh.

So just because somebody else had the insight to register a domain name long time before others and he is "not using" them, you can just walk in 10 years later demanding the domain name, then imo you are a thief.

15-20 years ago the domain registration and renewal cost much more then now, if somebody paid that much for a domain name, at a time when not many even thought about that interweb thingy out there with only one page text wihtout even pictures on them, then imo he has deserved the domain name.

I see so many newbies, in a danish entrepenuer forum, who just had an idea of a project website, and now are looking for domain names, they create threads like

"! Help me somebody has my domain and he doesnt want to give it to me!"

and when you read the thread you understand that what they mean by "my domain" is that they just a couple of days/hours/minutes ago thought

"heeey, my website is about selling dvdmovies online ("dvdfilm" in danish) it would be great to have dvdfilm.dk !! yeah thats what I want !!"

and they lookup the domain name and see that it is registered back in 1997 and don't have any website on it. So they think "Wtf!!! its a great name and nobody is using it!!! Its my domain name!"

These idiots don't even stop to think "hey einstein, its not like you just discovered the wheel, somebody else was smarter then you and had made all the thoughts you now have; 16 years ago and regged the domain. Just because you had this idea for a day/hour/minute doesnt make this your domain".

Thats so irritating. And you know what... the domain laws in Denmark actually makes it possible for such ar.e.oles to get the domain name, because the danish domain law actually says that it is illegal to reg a .dk-domain name with the purpose of reselling/wharehousing/not using the domain name to its fully worth.

So even if you in Denmark have a website on your domain name, if somebody else wants it, they can say "hey i don't think the danish society benefit from his ugly website, I can make one that can be of very economic benefit for Denmark and the society" this i.iot would have a chance getting the domain name. Incredible? yes but it has happen and will happen again Im sure, as long as there are people like Brian who is in charge and their old way of thinking.

You would think we were living in a dictatorship or kommunist country.

So Brian is that what you want also to happen with the .com-domains? have a rule like in .dk-domains? so even if you use it, you can risk to loose it?

(Sorry for this looong reply, but it really irritate me when people thinks shortsighted, closeminded and not respect ones property rights, don't you have a 5th amendments right in usa?.)

 

[brian1234]

MU, thanks for your detailed insight

Of course, there should be rights associated with domain names.
That has always been the case, and it should continue to be so.

What I am talking about here 'though, is the intention behind
a name registration, and more particularly, the issue of BAD
FAITH.

Let me ask you, should you be allowed to do anything you like
with domain names? (incl. using them as vehicle for slander...
crapping on someone's TM so you can hurt their good name or
try and rip them for more $$$, etc..).

Do you agree with the idea that you can (and should) lose your
domain, and quite possibly others that you own, if you've done
any of those things?

Incidentally, what "property rights" are you referring to? We're
talking about domain names, where you are a 'registrant'...

 

[M.U.]

Well Brian first I will start with your last question.

I really would hope that one day Denmark will follow Canada regarding accepting domain names as Intangible Property:
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/168562/Trademark/What39s+In+A+Domain+Name+The+Ontario+Court+Of+Appeal

Edited: Coincidentally this case was also involving a Brasilian (What is it Brasilians has against other peoples domain name?) lol

Now to your first question.

I believe that a domain name can do what he/she wants as long as it does not "step" on others rights.

If you register mikrosooft.com yes that would be "stepping" on others rights, might it be in registered TM or unregistered TM, does't matter to me.

Thats why we in our company always do a comple due diligence before we reg/buy a domain name.

But I am very much agains reverse domain hijacking, by registering a TM, just with the intention to get a domain name, this is IMO minimum just as bad as registering a domain name in bad faith, if not more bad, as it is intentionally thivery.

 

[brian1234]

But I am very much agains reverse domain hijacking, by registering a TM, just with the intention to get a domain name, this is IMO minimum just as bad as registering a domain name in bad faith, if not more bad, as it is intentionally thivery.

I agree completely. This case, however, it appears to me, is anything but
reverse-hijacking and whilst I think it is commendable that DN 'owners'
show some solidarity toward a fellow domainer, in their supposed "hour
of need", 'domaining' is an area of entrepreneurial activity that needs
cleaning up... in a big way.

How else can 'domaining' acquire a better reputation?...

Or consistency of decision be applied to DN disputes?...

 

[hugegrowth]

You are confusing things, the SaveMe.com case is clearly reverse domain hijacking, at least in my eyes.

What Rick's response has been and his actions are a separate issue. If you are suggesting his actions in response to the reverse domain hijacking should be called Bad Faith and cause him to lose the domain, I would say no. The Brazilian guy could seek other action if he thinks he's been wronged, but it has nothing to do with registration rights to this domain. It sounds like you have something personal against Rick, what do you think then of other groups like NA, Marchex, Demand Media, BuyDomains, Tucows, etc who hold tens/hundreds of thousands of domains openly for sale on the internet? Lots of people buy domains with the sole intention to hold them as investments for later resale. Maybe you don't put up a website but use the domain only for email. Who knows?

At what price do you think Rick should have sold SaveMe.com to not be in 'bad faith'?

This is a case of a bully who is late to the game trying to push someone around and steal something they have no right to. What do you say about those actions? Is it ok for anyone with money and legal means to go out and take any domain they want? It could happen to you with your LLLL.com or anyone else here, at least Rick is trying to make an example of this guy and his lame case.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

How can you not think the SaveMe.com case is anything but reverse domain hijacking?

You are trying to confuse the SaveMe.com case with 'black hat' type domaining (eg: registering trademarks, bad faith registrations) and they are not even close to the same thing.

 

[brian1234]

Thanks for your comment, HugeGrowth, I can see that you genuinely
believe what you're saying...

For the record, I don't feel any grudge toward Rick Schwartz as a
person, but do feel that he is casting an unsavoury shadow over
the domain name "industry", such that it is.

As for his domain-related success, good for him!.. I think it's a
charming story to hear how in the early 90's he did what no one
else thought about... regged a load of names and made out like
a bandit.

Well, it's a charming story the first 100 times you hear it anyway ;-)

Seriously 'though, I have no axe to grind with the guy, but the
simple fact is that he can not be trusted with domain names...

Do I mean that?

I surely do!...

Using domains as a weapon*, against people who didn't want to
pay an extortionate price (for a low value name) appears to be his
latest endeavor. Does that sound to you like someone who can be
trusted to hold any domain names?

Like to claim that this is "just his way?"...

Pleeeeease!

If SaveMe.com.br can verify all that they have claimed in their
papers, that Schwartz himself has published, then it would be a
very sad day indeed if he won the claim.

It's time for people to stop keep thinking about themselves, and
do the "right thing".


* According to case papers; see the link, referred to earlier in this
thread, and refer to "I am forwarding some very special domain
names to this guys linkedin page within a few hours. Let the world
know what a legal 'whore' looks like".

 

[silentg]

You got this thing wrong. Rick's not exposing the guy because he wouldn't pay the price Rick asked. Rick's exposing a thief who's trying to use WIPO to steal SaveMe.com. What is the "right thing" you speak of?

It's hard for me to believe that you don't have any personal hatred towards Rick. If rick was exposing every lowballer, he would be posting a blog post everyday.

 

[katherine]

Using domains as a weapon*, against people who didn't want to
pay an extortionate price (for a low value name) appears to be his
latest endeavor. Does that sound to you like someone who can be
trusted to hold any domain names?

In the eyes of Joe Public anything more than regfee is extortionate

The real value of a domain is something that is debatable and depends a lot on the circumstances.
Rick suggested that negotiations should start at 6 figures. Is the domain worth that I don't know.
But who should dictate the ultimate value ? Complainants ?

Of course there are plenty of considerations, and it is the sum of many facts that will determine the outcome of the case.
When the owner is asking for 6 figures it's not surprising that some people are taking a shot at WIPO, it's almost like a lottery ticket. Sometimes it works.
I also wonder how come the 3 members of the panel are all from Brazil. I wouldn't think that the panel was 'properly constituted'.

 

[Biggie]

You are confusing things, the SaveMe.com case is clearly reverse domain hijacking, at least in my eyes.

What Rick's response has been and his actions are a separate issue.

exactly!

the initial complaint has to be addressed first, which involves validity of claim of typo error.

the 2nd complaint includes the first and adds other references to aftermath reactions allegedly done by .com owner.

since the first has to be settled, then the 2nd is irrelevant

why

when 1st is settled, no need to decide the other

but it depends on who the panelists are and what past decisions they rely on for guidance

if there is any "preconceived" prejudice or "geo-jurisdictional" favoritism, then....

 

[hugegrowth]

I almost think this is just a joke thread and you are stirring the pot for fun.

Clearly you don't like what Rick did after the person tried to take his domain away through WIPO. Rick only used his domains as a 'weapon' AFTER the person took action to steal his domain, not because the person wouldn't pay his price. If the person had just gone away I'm sure Rick wouldn't have done anything and could have cared less. The fact you don't like Rick's behaviour doesn't mean his domain should be taken away.

At it's core, this is purely a case of reverse hijacking and Rick should get to keep his domain. What he said or did after the fact doesn't play into it. Whether he owns 1 domain or 100,000 domains doesn't matter. Whether he asks $1 for the domain or $1,000,000 doesn't matter. He is not using the domain in bad faith against another domain/website that didn't even exist when he first registered the domain.

To answer the questions in your original post:

Someone who has registered a domain name...
And they've done nothing with it, since the date of registration...
They've openly entered in to negotiations to sell that name...
And they've shown no intention of doing anything with it (other than
sell)...
The name is worth very little, by anyone's estimation...
And they also have a reputation for 'sitting on' domain names, and not
developing them...
Is it ok for that person to continue to hold on to that name, and ask
whatever price they like, or is the above evidence of BAD FAITH?

Yes it is ok for that person to continue to hold the domain, and no it is not evidence of bad faith.

I guess if the case goes to a panel we will see the arguments and the result.

 

[DigiNames]

1. SaveMe.com was not registered in bad faith.
2. SaveMe.com was not used in bad faith.
This is another example of Reverse Domain Hijacking attempt by a company that was started in 2010.

Ditto.

This is a conversation I would expect to have with people that are completely ignorant about domains, but it is baffling that anyone on a domaining board would think for a second that saveme.com.br, started 2 years ago, has any right whatsoever to go after a generic name that was hand registered 16 years ago.

 

[brian1234]

but it is baffling that anyone on a domaining board would think for a second that saveme.com.br, started 2 years ago, has any right whatsoever to go after a generic name that was hand registered 16 years ago.

I can see how it would be baffling for a person that comes from
a self-serving attitude to think that by protecting Schwartz they
are also afforded some protection...

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I would think
that SaveMe.com.br have grounds to launch criminal proceedings
against Schwartz, in addition to the WIPO, and we'll wait to see
what happens there.

This is my final post on this thread, but please try and be a little
creative with the ignorance if you can. Even inbred comments
should have a little variety

Cheers,

 

[aclass]

I've been reading this thread for some time now and decided to post a little.

1. Rick thought about the term SaveMe a few years back. Although he didn't really do anything with the domain itself, he thought that it will be good name for a website. So he might have rights on the .com.br ... Just because he was the first one to think about such a website.

2. The domain owner has the right to show or send his visitors to whatever content he wants to and that includes adult. If now how are the adult guys going to have websites. Yes it is a bit offensive to do it after the owner of another domains attacks you, but it is your right to do it. After all there are plenty of p***stars waiting to be "saved" in many ways.

3. This is not exactly reverse hijacking as they did not register the .com.br for the sole purpose of getting the .com, but still...

4. There are many many domains, even with general meaning, owned by the big brands and they do nothing with them. Should we start WIPO-ing them because they don't use their domains. You can try WIPO Microsoft for one of their great generics, which they don't use. Good luck.

5. After all every or at least almost every site is created to make money. This means every or at least almost every domain is registered for the sole purpose to make money one way or another and as a site is generally a business, it can be sold at any price the seller/owner and the buyer agree on. Yes, this does not include clear TM domains, but this is not the case here.

6. Having applied for a TM in one country has nothing to do with having that TM as a world known brand. I never heard of that saveme site before I read about this case. I bet many of us didn't hear about it too.

.

 

[katherine]

All I can say is that everybody should read the complaint very carefully.
Each word counts, especially when the complainant is not a native English speaker.
WIPO is not going to debate on principles but facts and circumstances :whip:

 

[ukbackorder]

I hope he loses. There are lots of lovely valuable .coms I want that are not being used where the .com.br is free. A few dollars and hoorah!

 

[DomainMagnate]

This is actually a very interesting point in general, if a domain registration and holding with the sole intent to sell higher can be considered in "bad faith", regardless of Rick's domainer celebrity status.

Would be great if we can have an opinion on this from one of the domain lawyers on the forums. Because, beside lacking in the legal knowledge, we are all naturally biased as domainers

 

[Tia Wood]

This is actually a very interesting point in general, if a domain registration and holding with the sole intent to sell higher can be considered in "bad faith", regardless of Rick's domainer celebrity status.

You really don't know if holding something with the intent to sell higher is 'bad faith' or not? Geez, I hope not then we're all screwed.

 

[DomainMagnate]

You really don't know if holding something with the intent to sell higher is 'bad faith' or not? Geez, I hope not then we're all screwed.

Common sense and law aren't always the same, but we can sure hope.

 

[Maxwell]

If THEY came to HIM, how is it that he "entered" into negotiations?

If they really felt so "entitled" to the name, why would they have offered money for it in the first place?