Hacker News Reader

Comment by quickthrower2 | Hacker News Reader

Except the $20 bill in this case is a $-10 bill (or whatever the domain name costs), as there is no profit to be made by registering a top company's trademark as a domain name.

View on HN

Ha exactly — like a briefcase with $1million on the sidewalk. No way I’m touching that!

I too don’t want Javier Bardem hunting me down.

Well we know he'd do it for $2M. But for $1M...what are the odds?

Need to watch that again. Thanks for reminding me. His role was awesome.

I will never watch that again. Too depressing. His role was awesome.

Or Lloyd Christmas

Or Mullan and O’Malley (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_Grave)

Yup. It's more like lots of people were walking along and saw exactly what it was, and knew better than to touch it.

> $-10 bill (or whatever the domain name costs)

For the curious, .soy seems to be one of the more expensive TLDs. It's $34.54 at Gandhi, $25.98 at Namecheap, $35.99 at Network Solutions, and $20 at Goggle. (I also tried at Bluehost, HostGator, and Godaddy, but none of them seem to even offer .soy).

It looks like netflix.soy was registered via Google, so that would be a $-20 bill.

Would a proper analogy be: free boat! (needs work, might be radioactive)?

I wouldn't necessarily think like that.

A domain can be either resold to another third party or could be sold to the trademark owner itself. You might reach a price agreement that brings you some money and costs the trademark owner less than getting a lawyer involved.

While it is an unwinnable case, there is a positive dollar amount to settling out of court.

Especially if you have a cute story like the MikeRoweSoft guy did.

He bought mikerowesoft.com though, not microsoft.soy. It would not have ended the way it did if he'd bought the latter. His case was a lot less clear cut than a blatant exact string match on an unambiguous trademark. Also, Mike Rowe is actually his name; Netflix is not this guy's name.

I think Nissan.com is more illustrative -- it was a guy named Nissan[1] who had an actual computer business in his name and got to keep it away from Nissan Motors, but now his site has a lot more to do bragging about his fight with the motor company than actual computer stuff.

[1] Hebrew/Israeli name usually transliterated as "Nisan"

Interesting, why doesn't Nissan motor just paid more money say a million for it?

Surely they can afford it.

Took a quick look at the case. I'm guessing some corp lawyer, maybe even general counsel, didn't have enough "real work" to do and needed to make a name for himself. Then it became a giant d* measuring contest.

Source: Went to law school. Never practiced though.

They got bad self-serving advice from lawyers. A lawyer doesn't get paid much if all they do is write up a contract for a private agreement to buy a domain, but they get paid a lot if the disagreement goes to trial instead.

In case you've never heard of them: https://microsoft-informatica.com/

Yes, they were here first.

No there isn't. Companies won't pay you money for having cybersquatted on their obvious trademark. You'll lose the domain flat out through UDRP.

The best outcome that can happen to you if you find yourself in such a situation is that you relinquish the domain name for free and nothing further comes from it.

Arbitration through UDRP is expensive, both in terms of process costs and employee time. A reasonable company would probably pay more than registration costs to avoid it.

Not if you take into account that they also want to deter future cybersquatting.

Covering actual costs without significant profit is a deterrent. If it costs $20 to register and you ask for $30 I think you're likely to get it.

You're underestimating how much value there is to companies in setting precedent on defending their trademark with an easy and practically guaranteed win. Companies need to proactively defend their trademark when it's being infringed upon or they risk losing it, and this is a really easy way to defend it.

The precedent is already established, you're missing the point: in order to enforce such precedent you have to go to court anyway.

And that costs money.

Looks like you haven't heard of https://nissan.com/.

They've had the domain for years.

Sure, if your name is Mike Google, then you might have better chances at keeping your domain. Probably still not good chances to profit off of it.

Now this a valid reason to give your kid the surname of a brand. To get rich quick. Too bad that this also limits employment options in the long run (can you imagine Google to work for Amazon?)

Except having the name is not enough, you also need to have used it in business already.

Happens all the time, as many brand names come from family names and the founder isn't the only person bearing that name.

>you also need to have used it in business already.

What is this based on? Because surely I have the right to own mylastname.suffix without being a business even if someone decides to make a business that bears my family name.

It remember me the story of Mike Rowe who named his company Mike Rowe Soft. Here the details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft

If it were your middle name then you could have the option to omit when needed.

Might be less limiting than you think.

There was famously an apple store employee called "Sam Sung" - https://www.cultofmac.com/290116/sam-sung-auctioning-apple-s...

Except that isn't cybersquatting. His name is Nissan and he did business as 'Nissan' before Nissan called themselves Nissan in the USA.

Wow, the look of that website made me feel like a teenager again!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com