| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> Can this be done? I thought Todd owned the TM for "Fibblesnork"?
Good thought Scott...
I looked at the site for the person(s) offering fibblesnork.com for
sale...here is what they claim:
"Our Policy: It is the policy of NameRegister.com to respect the legal
rights of others. Unfortunately due to the
volume of domains available through NameRegister makes it impossible to find
out whether any particular
domain offered for sale resembles a registered trademark or service mark.
We advise buyers to conduct such investigations as maybe appropriate in
their circumstances.
NameRegsiter.com obeys all applicable laws regarding the registration and
use of domain names.
We also adhere to the policies established by ICANN for domain name
registrations."
Basically, they are spewing BS...they DO have some culpability here...though
none of the sites they have mapped the domain to are called "fibblesnork",
they ARE sullying the name by pointing the domain to those sites...but, as
usual, how do you enforce the nameless Internet?
Not surprisingly, there is no WHOIS information available for
www.nameregister.com...it's a blank front. No company called "NameRegister"
is on ICANN's list of accreditied domain registrars.
Unfortunately, many small registrars are offering co-branded, referral or
reseller programs, so the site is basically just a front for some porn sites
to make some more cash.
ICANN/INTERNIC offers no recourse or aid for problems. The info for working
within the system for "cybersquatting" type problems is here:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/
The final say here, though, is of course Todds'. Since we don't know why he
allowed the domain to lapse (and he MUST have gotten multiple warnings that
is was going to expire), it'll be his call if he wants to salvage the
domain, trademark or not. I'm sure he has lots of other things on his plate
right now...ya' know?
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> ICANN/INTERNIC offers no recourse or aid for problems. The info for working
> within the system for "cybersquatting" type problems is here:
> http://www.icann.org/udrp/
I followed that link and found that there are currently 4 organisations
offering name resolution dispute. Let us posit that this would be an open
and shut case... with no other expenses than the fee to the organization.
The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
> The final say here, though, is of course Todds'. Since we don't know why he
> allowed the domain to lapse (and he MUST have gotten multiple warnings that
> is was going to expire), it'll be his call if he wants to salvage the
> domain, trademark or not. I'm sure he has lots of other things on his plate
> right now...ya' know?
I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. How is it good for the
community to have this happen? I know I would have paid the fee in an
instant without even a second thought. Even if it wasn't hosted, better to
have a broken URL than a pornsite link.
This just seems weird weird weird. Think back... Suzanne rescued a domain
that LEGO had let lapse! Now this. I don't get it. But I said that already.
To the community, are there any other domains with anywhere close to the
linkage potential that are at risk? If so we should take action before it's
too late.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
> was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
> anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. [...]
Lapse of brain functioning...didn't realize the domain was up for renewal.
The notices were probably sent to the old email address and old snail-mail
address from 1996 from when I signed up. Things were forwarding for a long
time but I don't think I ever updated my contact info. d'Oh.
--Todd
[followups to .publish]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
>
> Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> > varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> > back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> > ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
> >
> > Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> > them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> > That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
>
> Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
> pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Yes, he indicated this in very clear language.
> Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
> donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
> this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
> in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
> Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
make such an offer?
> I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money. Why help
Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
little to do with LUGNET anymore.
I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
spent.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
> > was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
> > anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. [...]
>
> Lapse of brain functioning...didn't realize the domain was up for renewal.
> The notices were probably sent to the old email address and old snail-mail
> address from 1996 from when I signed up. Things were forwarding for a long
> time but I don't think I ever updated my contact info. d'Oh.
Might be worth checking they've got the right contact info for the lugnet
domain name.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
> make such an offer?
A) Because I do believe that it impacts the community, whether you (or Todd)
likes it or not. B) Because, as I stated, I don't like the business practice
-- and I am aware in this instance of something that might possibly be done
about it.
What's it to you?
> > I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> > do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> > resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
>
> Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money.
Yes they do.
> Why help
> Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
> little to do with LUGNET anymore.
See above. And remember that not everything is LUGNET. There is a whole
online LEGO fan community and fibblesnork is a known piece of it.
> I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
It seems that you do.
> that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
> charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
> spent.
I'll tell you what...you spend your money the way you want to, and I'll spend
my money how I want. Deal?
Chris
|
|
|
