PDA

View Full Version : Savvy players shift tactics in internet name game


blastfromthepast
8th April 2006, 10:30 PM
Savvy entrepreneurs have now shifted tactics to buying generic domain names such as mutualfunds.com and videocamera.com and charging companies to put advertising on the site, which is seen by visitors searching for goods and services similar to those in the web address.

Revenue from adverts on “direct navigation” sites, such as newyorkrealestate.com, is expected to top $400 million this year. Companies such as Internet REIT, which paid $150,000 for business.com in 1995 and sold it four years on at $7.5 million, see a web address as steady income.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-2123780,00.html

idnceo
9th April 2006, 04:03 AM
blast, u should start an idn news website everyday! u find the stories that every idner loves to read! so what s the url for idn news and articles? ;)

touchring
9th April 2006, 06:23 AM
Wow, it took the media so long to discover this "shift"?

That's why i failed to discover IDNs years ago - because i read the "news".

Edwin
9th April 2006, 08:13 AM
They're still fumbling the definition of "cybersquatters" after all this time... sad!

Rubber Duck
9th April 2006, 08:45 AM
Wow, it took the media so long to discover this "shift"?

That's why i failed to discover IDNs years ago - because i read the "news".

Yes, it generally transliterates back into English as "archeology"!

touchring
9th April 2006, 10:06 AM
They're still fumbling the definition of "cybersquatters" after all this time... sad!

I think the general definition of cybersquatter is a person that registers (note, the distinction between 'register' and 'buy' from resale) domains in hope of making money out of them, as opposed to a company or individual that registers a domain for its website.

In conclusion, we're all cybersquatters. So, who's the biggest here? :)

Edwin
9th April 2006, 10:29 AM
No, that's the incorrect definition that a lot of people have put time and effort trying to educate the media to avoid using. But I agree that it still sticks tenaciously in many people's minds, not least in the minds of journalists...

[The correct definition is something like "a person who registers domain names corresponding to the names of companies in the hope of selling them back to those companies at a profit and/or making money off the traffic generated by people trying to find those companies."]

idnceo
9th April 2006, 10:52 AM
No, that's the incorrect definition that a lot of people have put time and effort trying to educate the media to avoid using. But I agree that it still sticks tenaciously in many people's minds, not least in the minds of journalists...

[The correct definition is something like "a person who registers domain names corresponding to the names of companies in the hope of selling them back to those companies at a profit and/or making money off the traffic generated by people trying to find those companies."]

i think this is the correct definition but some guys in here are truly cybersquatters that have many companies names that arent generic. thats why we can call them cybersquatters! :rolleyes:

Rubber Duck
9th April 2006, 12:53 PM
I had a lot of sympathy for companies that got caught out in the original dot com launch as most didn't really understand what was going on.

However, all recent launches have a sunrise period. I believe that unless the term has no other possible connitations, than a registered trademark, then there should be a limited period after the launch of a registery for a WIPO case to be brought. Basically, use it or loose it!

Edwin
9th April 2006, 01:35 PM
Sorry, I don't agree.

If your company/product name is made up i.e. isn't in the dictionary, then it should be "hands off" regardless of how vigorously you defend it.

If it's truly generic, on the other hand, then it should be "fair game" once the sunrise period has expired - unless by context it's clear that it's a cybersquatting attempt.

For instance:-

- microsoft.com (not generic, 100% made up word, hands off in the original language and exact phonetic representations in other languages)
- windows.com (generic, anyone should be able to reg it)
- windowsoperatingsystem.com (context makes it non-generic, even though both "windows" and "operating system" are generic keywords/keyphrases.

The same should apply for any language i.e. if you're registering a Japanese made-up expression that only has value (OT results, searches, recognition etc.) because of the company, product or service associated with it, then you are a cybersquatter.

i think this is the correct definition but some guys in here are truly cybersquatters that have many companies names that arent generic. thats why we can call them cybersquatters! :rolleyes:

If anyone shows an obvious, repeated pattern of deliberate "real" cybersquatting behaviour then IMO they should be kicked out of the forums. I don't mean a handful of accidental registrations in the process of picking up IDNs in languages the owner can't speak or read (though the right thing to do with such "problem" registrations would be to let the domains expire or delete them, not resell them), but methodical, deliberate registrations which are being presented (and offered for sale) in the full knowledge that they infringe...

After all, why should such people benefit from the insights and information being shared by forum members when their actions are damaging the reputation of domainers, and IDN domainers in particular?

Rubber Duck
9th April 2006, 01:46 PM
Sorry, I don't agree.

If your company/product name is made up i.e. isn't in the dictionary, then it should be "hands off" regardless of how vigorously you defend it.

Agreed.

[/QUOTE]

If it's truly generic, on the other hand, then it should be "fair game" once the sunrise period has expired - unless by context it's clear that it's a cybersquatting attempt.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed

[/QUOTE]

For instance:-

- microsoft.com (not generic, 100% made up word, hands off in the original language and exact phonetic representations in other languages)
- windows.com (generic, anyone should be able to reg it)
- windowsoperatingsystem.com (context makes it non-generic, even though both "windows" and "operating system" are generic keywords/keyphrases.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed

[/QUOTE]

The same should apply for any language i.e. if you're registering a Japanese made-up expression that only has value (OT results, searches, recognition etc.) because of the company, product or service associated with it, then you are a cybersquatter.[/QUOTE]

Agreed

Not quite sure where we differ. All I was suggesting was that companies that might have a strong but not unique claim on a domain should not be allowed an indefinite window of opportunity. There is in fact adequate legal protection of Trademarks through the Civil Courts, without recourse to WIPO. I think that there should be a limited time period all WIPO claims, if not from the launch date at least from date of first registration.

touchring
9th April 2006, 03:31 PM
I'm quite surprised at the strong feelings people have with trademarks and rights which i should have known better since trademarks are enforced in the Western world.

While i do not condone such act, but there are some things you have to know if you intend to capitalize on this situation. For example, if you buy chinese trademarks - you have to understand that people in China are not going to pay you big sums or bring you to court over the name you hold - piracy is rampant and it's part of life. If they can't get the exact name, they are going to use another name, add an "i", or add a "51", or even use a typo instead (that's often the case for pinyin). All sorts of things are pirated and "faked", from baby milk - and yes, those people do not care if babies die from malnutrition after drinking those talcum powder milk, to fake cooking oil - parrafin oil used in replacement.

Sometime ago, i was informed that my company's chinese website was copied "wholesale" and that person might be selling a cracked version of my software. I just took a quick look for curiosity, and after that, well, forgot about the matter.

GreekCousin
10th April 2006, 12:40 AM
All very interesting! So are city name idns generic or not? Would trying to sell
LLLLL.com idn in Chinese to the owners of the 'english' .com 'topsite' be considered
cybersquatting?

John W
10th April 2006, 12:48 AM
Amazing and informative, touchring.

idnceo
10th April 2006, 04:09 AM
Would trying to sell
LLLLL.com idn in Chinese to the owners of the 'english' .com 'topsite' be considered
cybersquatting?

i have asked myself the same question; in fact, i would try to avoid selling to the same company than own the english .com ; i guess there is nothing wrong but the fact is i feel it smells like that. Besides you would earn more selling to the other company who does not have the generic keyword.

GreekCousin
10th April 2006, 11:55 PM
Cool!