Nissan is the seventh month of the Hebrew calender (April-May, more or less), and a common Israeli last name.
Domain Squatters are more like people that buy a ton of land, say, then go ahead and clearcut it all. Or at least smother it in billboards. They do to the internet what spammers do to email, flood it with utterly useless garbage that makes it less useful and defeats the benefit of it. Now, some of them, granted, simply park the domain and put up a “page cannot be displayed”, but even then, they make it impossible or at least very difficult for something useful to appear there, such as a useful and interesting website, particularly a not for profit one. Flooding the internet with useless garbage is what greasy spammers do, just like greasy pulp and paper mills destroy the rainforest.
I fully realize this’ll sound completely trivial but… it’s a pretty shitty way to treat a relative. Michael is allowing a distant family member to be monetarily penalized for sharing a common ancestor? That’s fucked up.
Michael Dell doesn’t by virtue of his success have sole ownership of the family surname to the exclusion of everyone else. That’s simply ludicrous.
For me, every progressive argument becomes moot because this fails the sniff test on even the most basic level.
I disagree with the clearcutting analogy. Forested land is a finite resource. Internet domain names are functionally unlimited. A squatter may make it difficult or impossible for someone to get exactly the domain name s/he wants, but anyone who wants a domain name can still get one. I also disagree with the spam comparison. Spam shows up passively with no effort on the part of the recipient. People have to actively go to a website. And I totally don’t get the “billboard” argument. The only times I ever see a billboard-type page is when someone who’d had the domain name let it lapse but the domain name itself is still linked somewhere. If the person who had it originally decided to let it lapse and no one else cared enough to pick it up and put something that one might deem interesting on it (assuming nothing underhanded was done by the squatter) then I just can’t work up any outrage about it. I don’t type in random URLs just to see what comes up as a result. Is that a common pastime?
How do you know the two Dells are related?
Dell has a brick & mortar presence in Spain
So it is probably within the jurisdiction of the Spanish civil courts.
Because domain squatters are scum, plain and simple.
A true story:
A friend of mine has a website devoted to cooking. Like many websites it was subject to renewal of the domain name. A squatter had set up a bot so that the second my friend’s domain expired, the bot registered the domain in the squater’s name, and put up porn, I don’t belive my friend was singled out, no doubt this squatter had similar bots crusing for other sites to have their domains expire so the same thing could be done.
Now, not only did my friend have to pay about three times the amount that he had expected to pay, to renew his domain, he was faced with people who were going to what they thought was a site where they could get a recipe for pickled salad, and instead geting an advertisment for...
Is this legal? Well I guess. Is it ethical? No. As you say, the squatter saw himself as some sort of speculative investor, the truth is he was little more than a petty thug running a protection racket.Why did your friend wait until the domain expired before renewing it? You know you can pay in advance, right? Sounds like your friend is just paying the price for being absent minded.
I’ve only registered one domain name in my life so maybe this isn’t standard practice, but don’t the registered domain name owners get advised that the registration is going to expire and are they not given the opportunity to renew? I was.
To tell the truth, I don't know, I'll ask next time I talk to him. All I know is that the bot set up by the squatter beat my friend to re-registering his name.and
Read the OP, ya mugs! 
Bolding mine.
It appears that Dell France is the main litigant here, obviously being pushed hard by the parent company in America. From Paul Dell’s own website:
And your friend failed to re-up the domain registration prior to expiry, as is the right of the current domain name registration holder? I do it every other year, and I don’t have anything particularly important at either of my domains. I re-up them at least a month before they expire. The additional year is tacked on from the date that the registration would’ve expired anyway, so there’s no excuse for not doing so before the date of expiration actually comes around.
My registrar starts sending me reminders three months before the expiry date. If your friend’s registrar doesn’t send reminders, they your friend has a crappy registrar.
This one’s not the fault of the squatters. Your friend should’ve kept on the ball and not let the domain name registration expire.
I see squatters as people who venture into safe, yet unclaimed lands, and put up the cheapest fence around the largest area possible. They sit and wait for someone to actually want to USE the land and squeeze them for every possible dollar.
They haven’t created anything, promoted anything or provided any value whatsoever. They just set themselves up as toll collectors for people who DO want to create something of value, and make it harder for them to do so.
100% parasites.
I used to buy and sell antique motorcycles all the time as a sideline. I would find some old non-running triumph for next to nothing and wait for a collector to buy it from me for many times what I paid for it. I didn’t create anything does that make me a parasite? Should that collector be able to take that motorcycle from me because I had no intention of riding it or fixing it up?
My knowledge of what the bike was worth allowed me to know what to buy and what to sell it for
the guy who buys a domain name because he recognizes the value of that domain name and then resells it for a profit is no differant. Same with someone who buys a piece of land and has no intention of building on it…because he knows eventually it will be worth something when that new mall gets built in the area.
Fuck that fucking shit!!! What the fuck are they THINKING???
I’m having the mother of all hissy fits!!!
Sorry, I don’t know what came over me.
There is a difference. You are making a deal with the current owner of that bike. Squatters are not making a deal with the current owner of anything, they are creating the domain out of the ether for the express purpose of preventing someone else from having it.
You are (I presume) advertising these bikes in some way, unless you are buying them and storing them in a dusty garage on the off chance a guy who wants a Triumph happens to trip on the sidewalk outside your house. Squatters are not advertising their wares, they do just sit on them waiting for someone to pick the same name then squeezing them for big bucks.
You, in a way, are a market maker, bringing bikes from sellers to buyers who would otherwise not get together. That is a positive value service. Squatters don’t create a market, they get in the way of commerce and force a toll from people who want to do business.
Maybe it’s a fine distinction, and not everyone will agree it matters, but that’s why I think squatters are parasites, and you are not.
In order for Dell Computers to win a case either under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, it would have to show that (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Dell Computers has rights, (2) Paul Dell has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, and (3) the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
In order for Dell Computers to win a case under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(d)(1)(A), (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Dell Computers’s mark and (2) Paul Dell has a bad faith intent to profit from Dell Computers’s mark.
Under both rubrics, if they are applied correctly, it seems to me that if Paul Dell has a legitimate interest in the mark Dell Web Sites and if Dell Computers cannot show that he adopted the mark with a bad faith intent to capitalise on Dell Computers’s notoriety, then Paul Dell is okay. Otherwise, it seems to me that Dell Computers is perfectly justified in going after him.
Usually it isn’t.
That’s what usually happens. I would be surprised if Dell Computers had not taken such steps before filing suit.
Lawsuits cost money. What makes you think a for-profit corporation doesn’t think it over and decide whether it’s worth taking the next step?
People disagree over what’s important. People disagree over what’s right. If it’s not so important, then one side or another might have given in already.
Really, this is what the civil law system is for, to adjudicate conflicts between private persons. I don’t know who’s right. Why shouldn’t the court decide? Does someone have any particular knowledge of the facts that would tell us that one side or the other is obviously wrong in this case?
Because you aren’t allowed to appropriate someone else’s intellectual property (in the form of a trademark) and make it into a speculative investment for yourself. If a company has spent time, effort, and millions of dollars building up the goodwill in its trademark, why should it have to pay a premium for something that it, by all rights, already owns to somebody who has no rights in it?
If you don’t want this kind of adjudication after someone has registered a trademark, then you’re going to have to turn domain name registration over to trademark authorities, who will then restrict the registration of domain names that include other people’s marks.
Wouldn’t it be easy for the DellWebSites front page to have a prominent notice and a link saying “this is not Dell Computer, the manufacturer of computers. If you want to go there, follow this link…”?
It probably would, but why should he?
I’ve given a link to the guy’s website already, and it should be clear to anyone with more than three functioning brain cells that it is a completely different operation.
Not only that, if someone were looking for Dell computer company, how likely is it that they would stumble across dellwebdesign.com accidentally? After all, the most likely web address to look for first would be dell.com, and Dell Computers owns that domain name.
Also, if you plug the word “dell” into a search engine like Google, dellwebdesign.com does appear anywhere on the first ten pages of results (i couldn’t be bothered looking any further).
Just to add:
This whole suit strikes me, in some ways, as similar to the McLibel suit that McDonalds undertook in the 1990s.
Even if Dell wins the legal battle, they’ll probably come out with PR egg on their faces. Also, this action is giving more publicity to Paul Dell than he ever would have got if Dell had simply left him alone.
Hell, if you plug dell web design into Google, Paul Dell’'s website still doesn’t appear on the first page of hits. Had Dell not started this action, no-one except his clients would even know who he is.