Yep, that’s how I got my domain name (guanolad.com). Not that anyone else would want a questionable name like that to represent them anyway.
I used to have another domain, similarly made up, but I never utilised it, so I let it lapse. Hopefully it will still be available when I finally have a use for it.
Unlikely, given that the squatters now have robots that search the registry for freshly-expired domains and register them. Beware theporn-nappers !
It’s still available. Cool.
I thought sitting on domains then selling them for large amounts of money was against the rules? Wasn’t there something about registering domains that large corporations would likely use?
I had a chat to a guy from Verisign in Hong Kong about that issue when the .biz domain was announced. “Oh, we’re doing it so people who missed out on dot coms can get a domain,” he said. “Bullshit,” I said, “You’re doing it to raise cash from pirates.” He just smiled.
You can use the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to transfer a domain name to you, although this requires you to own a trade mark to win (even some very large companies don’t own trade marks for their key IP assets) and isn’t always successful (barbie.com is owned by someone whose name is Barbie and she has resisted Mattel’s attempts to date to hand it over). A colleague of mine sat as the adjudicator for a Microsoft domain name dispute and got over 30,000 pages of documents in support of their claim to the particular name (one of their software packages they overlooked getting a domain for).
This is incorrect. Some guy made a few million because he was smart enough to register business.com way back when.
That is only a subset of the the first sentence of your post.
For those people that think they can bring big business to their own terms, well forget about it. Big business will have their way without courts or legal battles.
Let’s suppose there will be a Terminator 4 movie. You can buy up Terminator4.com and just wait for Arnold to send you a few million right? Wrong!!
The movie company will just look for a related name that will be just as adequate. How about TerminatorFour.com or Terminator4movie.com or T4themovie.com, etc?
Do you think you could figure out all the possible ways in which that movie could have no relevant domain name? They might even “tack on” a subtitle such as Terminator4thefinalinsult.com.
There are some rules against what is known as “cybersquatting,” but it’s not a matter of just what “large corporations would likely use.” Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999, 15 U.S.C. §1125(d), you can get a domain name away from a cybersquatter under two circumstances:
(1) You show that the registrant “has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section.” (Rumour has it that the personal name part was put in after someone registered the name of the wife of U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose purview includes intellectual property, and had associated it with a porn site.)
Or –
(2) You can show one of the following three things:
– You have rights in a distinctive mark and the domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to your mark.
– You have rights in a “famous” mark (as defined by the Federal Trademark Dilution Act) and the domain name “is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark.”
– You are the Red Cross or the International Olympic Committee and someone else has used marks that are specifically protected under federal statute (namely, “Red Cross,” “Olympics,” and related marks).
This statement reflects a misunderstanding of trademark law and a misunderstanding of the U.D.R.P.
First, there is such thing as a “common law trademark” in the United States under state law. That means that you can exercise certain rights in a trademark, even if you haven’t registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In order to win a U.D.R.P. action, you have to show that:
(1) The domain name in question is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which” you have “rights.” Usually, this means a registered trademark, but it doesn’t have to be. You just have to show that you have valid rights in a mark. Valid rights are based on showing that you use it in commerce as an identifier of the source of goods or services.
(2) The domain name registrant has “no rights or legitimate interests” with respect to the domain name.
(3) The registrant registered and is using the domain in bad faith.
What is bad faith?
The following may constitute evidence of bad faith:
(1) Evidence that the registrant registered the domain name “for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration” to you, the person who has rights in the mark, “for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.”
(2) Evidence that the registrant registered the domain name “in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name” and has done this more than once.
(3) Evidence that the registrant registered the domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor”
(4) Evidence that the registrant registered the domain name "“intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to” the registrant’s Web site “by creating a likelihood of confusion with [your] mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the registrant’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the registrant’s] web site or location.”
It might not have been successful in the Barbie case because Mattel was not able to show that:
(1) Barbie had “no rights or legitimate interests” in barbie.com. Well, because it’s her name, and obviously that is evidence of a legitimate interest in the domain name.
(2) Barbie had not registered and used the domain name in bad faith. If she was using it as a personal Web site, then there’s no reason why Mattel should be able to take it away from her. In trademark law, more than one person can have rights in a term, and you can’t always stop someone else from using that term.
#! /bin/bash
for i in `cat /usr/share/dict/words`; do
i=`echo $i | sed 's/[[:punct:]]//'`
whois -H $i.com | grep "No match for" > available.txt
done
I’m half tempted to run it and see how many matched I get, but my boss would probably kill me.
Then again, on my system, the dictionary is “only” 96274 words, so who knows?
Gah.
#! /bin/bash
for i in `cat /usr/share/dict/words`; do
i=`echo $i | sed 's/[[:punct:]]//'`
whois -H $i.com | grep "No match for" > available.txt
done
Mattel has it now. Maybe she sold it.