[WEB4LIB] Re: Lapsed domain names--beware

[Richard Wiggins]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that claim.  Let's say Amazon fails to pay their renewal and lets amazon.com lapse.  Let's say someone with an automated monitoring tool poaches the domain and populates the site with porn.  My guess is Amazon has a pretty good case for trademark infringement and cybersquatting, and will prevail in court and before the WIPO.  The poacher would not receive the premium; the domain will be returned to the owner, and I betcha the poacher finds itself paying damages.

In other words, the domain and the trademark share identity.  Letting the domain lapse in the DNS doesn't remove its value as a piece of intellectual property.  If Amazon lets its Yellow Pages ads lapse, that doesn't mean someone else can insert an ad with their phone number!

Let's hope the .us space, where many libraries reside, doesn't fall prey to these sorts of practices.  And that if there ever is a .library, that it's administered in a way that disallows squatting and poaching.

/rich


On Wed, 26 September 2001, Daniel Messer wrote:

...

> bill is 100% legal. Attempting to sell it back to them at a premium is also 100% legal.
> Folks, that's hardcore capitalism in action, Horatio Alger on cocaine. Is it moral?
> Well that's up to debate. Is it ethical? Probably not. But is it legal? Yes,
> absolutely. They're simply using the old law of supply and demand. They have something
> that the former owner wants, and they're willing to part with it for a price.
>     ...

Richard Wiggins
Writing, Speaking, and Consulting on Internet Topics
rich at richardwiggins.com       www.richardwiggins.com