Maybe you should have paid the $2000. Come to think of it...you might want to pay the $4000. Looking at your own forum it only has 5k posts...hardly a success. Obtain the dotcom if you can with an offer.
Your chances at WIPO are slim imho. The name is generic for usage. Tell ya the truth I might consider buying the dotcom myself. It's a great name and if it's getting traffic all the better...
Well the domain only gets a little traffic, and when the 2k offer came through I was too young and didn't have the money, and 4k is over priced for that name IMO it's probs more than 4k now anyways probs like 10k or 15k if your lucky, they put stupid prices on things..
I was right it's now currently at 10k?? http://dotcomagency.com/sitepages/qu...eneurforum.com.
How do they think they can sell at that price??..
Who are you to determine what they can sell their name for? If they wanted to put a trillion dollar pricetag on it, they have the right to do so.
You don't have a leg to stand on either way since it was regged before yours...
Well not getting into anargument, I'm not determining there prices, just saying IMO I dont know any end user who will buy that domain at 10k ?
Seeing as the term is generic for the usage, I don't think you have grounds for a tm, registered or not.
You are probably right, it may not sell at $10k... but some people reach for the stars... and just sit there reaching forever.
Matt...Its people like you, that may one day ruin this industry. Dont be mad just because they have champagne, and your stuck with beer...
Lol I'm not being rude to them, it's up to them what prices they want to set, I know. But if you list a domain for sale you must do it realistically, I'm not going to complain muh about the high prices as it doesn't concern me it's there loss if they can't sell it for that price, also they have the ability to set it at that price as they have some real generic domains like 2letter.coms so there probs not in a hurry to sell.
But thats just my opinion is that they will never sell there domain if they keep over pricing it. How can I ruin the industry, they only people who will ruin the industry is the people who bring out new TLD's every year such as .asia and .mobi, etc.
And I prefer beer TBH..
10k isn't completely unrealistic... I mean, I don't know if anyone would pay that much for it, but the figure in general is not unrealistic. It's not like they're asking a million bucks for it.
It's a realistic starting price for negotiating purposes.....
If you register a company, presumably in the UK, then how would that help you in a WIPO or a TM infringement claim? Its a generic term and a good one! Well done for regging the .co.uk version.
Would you think it's fair if the .com people regged a company in the US and came after you in a WIPO? I think they would have an equally poor chance of winning.
Pommyg thanks for the reply, I was just curious thats all, it's not a big deal that I can't get hold of the .com version, my sites going well as it is, and by the recent sale of ukbusinessforums.co.uk who knows.
Thanks for the replys all...
Why dont you send them an offer for $1000 and see what happens.
Just because they are ASKING 10,000 if a real-money-offer arrives they may reconsider or at least renegotiate - personally, if I owned that name and you showed up at my door offering $1,000 you'd end up owning it.
My 2 cents worth.
Yeh i've offered up to 1500 for it I think a few months back or a year ago when it was at 2000 but they rejected, there very firm with there bids on that domain...
""and i'm just curious as to whether I can take legal action on the owner of the .com version, if I register my site as a company?"".
I am sure the phrase "Reverse Hijacking" would be raised..
That's what comes to my mind when I read his post.
I feel bad for people like Matt that want a domain name for a legitimate purpose and the domain is being held by an unscrupulous domainer that just wants to make a buck. This is why that Snowe Bill is floating around and might get passed. Ordinary people are tired of finding the good domains taken and not even used. The internet wasn't created to create wealth for cyber squatters. I am sure what I am saying is blasphemy to many domainers but too bad...
Where's the evidence that the .com owner is unscrupulous? He may wish to develop it in the future. He may wish to recoup the years and years of reg fees that he has put into owning that domain name + cost of capital+ risk + entrepreneurial rewards.
Where does wealth come from? If it's land, in most places it has simply been seized over the years from various peoples. The internet represents the first occasion in history when resources have been allocated on some sort of system rather than brute force, war and pillage. See various ongoing conflicts around the world for evidence.
Its great that Matt wants a genuine use for the .com version, but what if he paid $2000 and someone else wanted to buy it from him in ten years time? Would he be labelled a squatter for asking $4000 then or even $10000?..
Blasphemy. You know what, I'm in the process of opening up a Fitness Gym Directory on the web, and I do believe I have rights to gyms.com, I think I'll go ahead and sue the. I mean, who do they think they are registering that name and just sitting on it doing nothing, the nerve of them! /sarcasm..
You want evidence: http://whois.domaintools.com/entrepreneurforum.com.
Registered since 2004 and the guy has $35 into the reg fees (if that). Gets contacted about purchase and wants $2k..fine. Then gets contacted 6 months later and asks $3k. Time goes on and the price continues to rise. Now it's $10k. What value add has the current owner given to the domain to ask such a price? I think 4 years is enough time to at least place up a coming-soon holder page don't you?.
Domainers as a whole think a domain registration gives them god-given all rights on the domain. It's a lease my brothers. It's not yours. The registrar is allowing you to use it. One day I hope soon the Snowe bill gets passed. The end of squatting is near.
Parking companies have ruined the internet. If they didn't exist there wouldn't be easy revenue streams for major portfolio holders and many domains would probably be in the hands of people that actually make use of the name.
Domainers assume incorrectly that registration means ownership. It doesn't. It's more of a stewardship and parking isn't proper care of a domain. http://www.answers.com/stewardship?nafid=3..
In that case, anyone owning undeveloped land, houses they dont live in, cars they dont use, cans of hot dogs they dont eat, gardens they dont care for, car parking lot owners period should give up these assets. That sounds like communism to me. And my view is that we do own the domain names, otherwise, we couldnt sell them...
And yet your "view" is entirely wrong. Maybe you should rethink the rest of your argument based on this new awareness.
Hey..try this out. Go rent a house from someone. Then re-rent it to a new person every night. See how quick the OWNER actually takes to pull your lease and evict you and your squatter friends.
I am sure you will just continue ignoring all my evidence and the actual facts though. It's a common trait amongst domainers attempting to protect their income. Everyone else is wrong because well...they make money so it must be ethical. More domainers should have the guts to admit they are really bottom feeders hoping to find a big fish that wants their domain. Go and describe to the average Joe what you do and see how quickly their face sours.
So, in your world, who owns the domain names? Its not the registrar, they just register them.
I would agree with one thing. Average Joes need to be aware of this trade, as I am sure they would want to join in.
Actually, two things. I am not a big fan of parking, but more because of the potential legal issues, although we have already had that discussion: http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues...ringe-tms.html..
Be careful what you wish for. Who is going to define what proper care of a domain is ? .
If I set up a shitty site full of 404 instead of parking does that qualify as good use ?
Jesse you have been around long enough to know what squatting means..
Should I enumerate the hundreds of parked names you have at Sedo ? The OP's question is perfect illustration of why we don't want the Snowe bill to pass. It's unjust and confiscatory. Everyone stands to lose including you...
I can see the fair points passed here,and I agree as I do have domains parked but I would like some sort of system to 'apply' for domains to be transferred over at a 'reasonable price' so the people who want to develop on the domains can.
When I state apply I mean go before a panel and state your claims as to why you should own the domain over the current owner, and ownership to be passed under strong circumstances, for example say namepros reg'd namepros.co.uk instead of the .com and got this popular (as it is not but on the .co.uk name) then they should have a case to put forward for the .com version.
Do you think this would work, or is a stupid idea? I think it will bring better quality to the net for the millions of views,which is what were all set out to do when creatin a website, along side the money making...
The Snowe bill is a good starting point. Toward confiscation.
In the real world this would be like I can seize your house because I have 2 kids while you are alone and only occupy one of three stories. We already have that, it's called UDRP.
I can understand your frustration you legally don't have any particular rights over the .com unless you can demonstrate the owner is taking advantage of your TM and using the name in bad faith. But the name itself is quite generic in nature (made of two generic keywords)..
BTW it's also taken under .net .org .biz and .us...
I never claimed righteousness. If anything I am a complete sinner, hypocrit, squatter, or whatever you need to label me. However the vast majority of my income is from development. I could unpark my names at any time and it would only lose me a few bucks. I ain't stupid though...I make money wherever I can as long as it's legal. Yeah but what if you are homeless and someone has two houses one that's not being occupied? Don't make "real world" associations when in reality the internet is not "real world".
It's way off base. If you want a comparison..use a lease analogy as domains are only a contract-lease right and nothing more. Confiscation requires property..domains are not property. Go join the ICA...they have an agenda to make domains property. If legally that did occur.
Why don't domainers show a little more pity to those truly interested in developing a good name. Instead they offer to raise the price as the buyer is an "end-user". There are laws against price-gouging during crisis emergencies. It would be interesting to see if price-gouging laws can be added to the Snowe Bill. Maybe I will send them an email...
I agree with pretty much everything else you said except this. Domains aren't something that people *NEED* in any state. The label of "price gouging" isn't something one would attribute to a luxury item, which is what I would consider a domain. If I want to ask a ridiculously high price, thats my right. Just because you want to develop on it and cant, that doesn't constitute a crisis emergency.
I can't speak for every domainer out there, but I want to sell my names, so if someone comes along with a reasonable offer and has plans to develop, all the better.
If you institute a price-gouging law, then one has to define it. Which means one has to be able to valuate a domain name. Then we'd have some governing body telling us what we can and cant charge for our domains. I dont think any of us really want that...
I agree Herb. I guess my point is that there is on the books price-gouging laws. It's not imho a reasonable stretch to apply some form of fair-use requirement for a domain. In NYC for instance there are at times slum lords of dilapidated buildings that the city takes the property away or heavily penalizes them.
There are even squatter rights where if you take residence in a building over time you can gain rights to ownage. It's actually the opposite of cybersquatters because they do NOT value add to the domain.
For all building, structures, and even land there are strict guidelines that need to be followed. For domains...it's simply register (not buy mind you) and you have free reign? It's going to change one day whether domainers like it or not. At least that's my opinion. The Snowe Bill is the writing on the wall. Develop or die.
Oddly the mobi RFP was probably the most brilliant idea for domaining in a while yet it failed miserably because of the greed from mTLD. The RFP was hailed as a shining light for mobi where domains would be in hands of end-users. I don't see how conceptually my ideas are any different. Mobi has the right to take away domains that are not in compliance with their mobile standards. Why can't the other domains do the same over time? Every new contract could include stipulations and requirements for development and use. It's already there for mobi. I think domainers simply fear development because in reality..many (not all) are complete noobs that only know how to use drop tools and search wordtracker...
I really suck at development, so I hope thats not the case. I guess I can just throw up a ton of Joomla or WP sites.
Anyway, I do agree that the industry will change drastically in the coming years. Whether from this bill, or all the lawsuits going on right now... Something extreme is going to come from it all. And to tell you the truth, we deserve it. We've made these domaining companies big and watched them prostitute the industry for their own gains, yet we continue to support them in hopes that we too can make a buck. They've completely ruined the image of the industry with shady practices and complete disregard for the law. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a storm that washes all the filth away...
You have said it, real estate and domains are different things.
Homeless people sometimes die of the cold but I doubt somebody ever died because they couldn't get hold of a coveted domain..
It's not like it's a do or die situation.
Sometimes the masses are lured into thinking confiscation is an effective way to redistribute wealth. Zimbabwe is an example..
Matt already has the .co.uk version.
Wouldn't he be depriving someone else from using this domain by.
Matt says: "...my sites going well as it is, and by the recent sale of ukbusinessforums.co.uk who knows ".
Seems to me Matt is looking to make some bucks too!.
The Snowe bill is supposed to be an anti-phishing bill but is a not so very cleverly disguised 'license to steal domains' bill.
Wait until someone decides they want your domain...or Matt's.
Like Entrepreneur Magazine (entrepreneur.com).
Maybe they would want to start a forum in England.
They want Matt's domain and decide Matt is violating their trademark.
Are you listening Matt?.
The Internet was created for the Military.
Then used by Academia.
The World Wide Web was later created for anyone to use.
That use includes domain registrations.
And the buying, selling and developing of them.
You really need to review the definition of cybersquatter.
I'll give you a clue.
It does not mean someone simply registering generic domain names no matter how many. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatter.
In case you don't know the rules, domains are sold on a.
'First Come, First Served" basis..
While you are visiting Wikipedia, you might want to look up Capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
By your way of thinking:.
No real estate developer should buy land just to hold...someone else.
Is being deprived of use.
No one should have more than one home...since they can only live in one place at a time they are depriving others use of those homes.
Donald Trump and all those Billionaires on Forbes' list should give some of their $ to me since they cannot possibly use it all. I can. And they are depriving me use of those $ vaulted away. (I like this one!).
Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno own more cars than an auto dealership has..
They cannot drive them all...all the time. They should give some cars away.
Instead of hoarding them.
Hugh Hefner should give up 4 of his 5 girlfriends.
Anyone with an excess of anything should give away all except what they absolutely need.
What you said is not blasphemy...but it is disappointing someone who is a member on a domain forum would have such an opinion.
Patrick The domain owner can ask whatever price he wants, it's the Marketplace.
That will decide if the price is reasonable.
Homes in my area that were $180,000 or so just a few years ago are now around $500,000 or more.
The homeowner did not add any value to the home to justify such a huge price jump.
The real estate marketplace determined the price rise ...and homeowners went along for the ride.
If I am not willing to pay the price , I don't get the house.
If no one is willing to pay the price, then the home doesn't sell.
The price will have to come down if a sale is desired.
The same is true for domain names.
When you suggest that a domain is being offered at an unreasonable.
Amount, that's just your opinion.
The marketplace will determine if the price is unreasonable.
Suppose you were interested in iReports.com and offered Rick Schwartz:.
$5,000 - he refuses..
$10,000 - he refuses..
$15,000 - he refuses..
$25,000 - he refuses.
You give up and declare he is not being reasonable since the domain only cost him $70 to $100 ten years ago.
Then CNN comes along and wants iReports.com and winds up paying $750,000.
Is iReports.com worth $750,000?.
To you, no.
To me, no.
To CNN, yes.
Because they really wanted it... and could afford it.
What if Rick sold you the domain for $25,000 or less and then CNN came.
A calling...and you were the one to get $750,000.
Please tell me what value you would have added to the domain.
The short time you held it.
Answer = none, 0, zip.
Would you have taken the $?.
You bet you would!.
When someone sells a domain, they are giving up what.
Could (potentially) be a very valuable piece of virtual.
Real estate to someone else.
The domain registrant has the right to ask whatever price they.
Think they can get.
It's you and me and the marketplace that will decide if they get that price..
It's their domain currently.
As long as they are not cybersquatting (real definition- not yours).
Or doing anything illegal with the domain ,they can do whatever they.
Want with it.
They are not obligated to follow your timeline...or mine..
Yes, it's a lease.
But it is yours during the lease.
And you do have "god-given all rights on the domain".
As long as you are not cybersquatting (real definition- not yours).
Or doing anything illegal..
You may get your wish.
Unfortunately you will find that the result will go far beyond what you.
Someone who decides his interest in a domain exceeds yours will use.
This bill to try and unseat you as the domain registrant.
If you are not lucky, maybe the first domain "taken" will be yours.
As someone else said here: Be careful what you wish for.
One can pray I am so lucky. The publicity would be astounding. Ugh...yeah he should. Doubtful anyone is going to ague against that one.
I don't need to look up the definition of cybersquatter or capitalist nor a history lesson of the internet. Excuse me for having some socialist views too. I agree...good post Herb.
Patrick - What you say makes a lot of sense according to a capitalistic society with no business ethics. I just don't have that kind of "screw people over for a dollar" mentality. I would have offered it to him at a much fairer price to the market value. The owner is obviously squeezing an interested party for money he doesn't have. That's NOT a $10k domain imho (yeah just my opinion). People ask us here what domain values are all the time.
From reading this thread I side with the OP and believe the owner of the domain is being unreasonable with his pricing. Yes...that's his right. So what...that doesn't make it right. And laws change...Imagine one day it's illegal to sell a domain contract. It's quite possible.
And the rules for usage can easily change. Where domains can't be parked...no one here has addressed my comparison to mobi. I guess I hit a nerve there.
Little to disagree with here and I agree that our industry is very prone to regulation from many diff govs around the world, not least in the US....
If you want my take on this, I think mtld has been hoarding the most premium keywords under the blanket excuse that they would be bought by end users and would ultimately be developed. Right they are not so interested in the money after all !.
What happens actually is that the names are just awarded to the highest bidder, whether speculator or end user.
Example: flowers.mobi - still parked - but we would expect that since we all know Rick S. is the Parking King.
It's not only the domainers who are greedy... registries are greedy too..
So you want his domain... you search for loopholes in the law so you can steal it from him... man... would you like some greedy guy do that to you? bad karma heading your way...
So do you agree with the practice? I am not asking if you think it's legal as it obviously is. But do you believe it's ethical? There has to be some space ethics in business and companies (and individuals) should be expected to act in good-faith when dealing with others. Pure capatilism without checks and balances is going to corrupt any society. This is why we have the BBB, Consumer Reports, and Anti-Trust Laws. It's NOT outrageous to assume that domainers act with some good-faith with their domain contracts.
Good discussion overall and I am enjoying the tit for tat sir...
My *personal* opinion in that particular case is that the price tag is high. A bit overpriced. Now you can have anger toward the owner but this cannot justify reverse hijacking.
Again, it is difficult to compare domains with another industry like cars and computers, because each domain is unique - if you want a particular domain name, you can only get it from the owner, you cannot have a clone of it unlike cars, computers or oceanfront homes... A domain name is a unique asset..
The BBB and anti-trust laws are only effective for industries where competition exists and must be fostered. That kind of competition does not exist in domaining due to the unique nature of domain names. For that very reason any attempt to apply the same regulations that prevail on tangible assets would likely do more harm than good...
NamePros is not a generic name. But entrepreneurforum is. It is also very descriptive of the intended use. You will not win this one. It is a bad idea and IMHO, a trifle unprofessional. Can Buy.com sue for Buy.co.uk if it were not theirs??? Most generic domains are trademarked in full, like Buy.com (TM) and not Buy(TM).
If I may ask, why not sue entrepreneurforum.net as well???..
Because entrepreneurforum.net has a site set up, so I have no complaints about that,but I personally think there should be more regulation in the industry to provide 'quality websites' to browsers. Because 12 years ago I bet nobody expected it to be this big, but the domain industry should follow similar laws to businesses IMO, like the laws for business names, you can set up a business under the name of the owners name, e.g. john baker, but you can't called it 'johns law firm' unless you file for your name registration under something similar to the business names act 1985 etc, this is again just another idea, but I would think it would reduce the number of junk domains and leave the real quality ones in.
Also does anyon have a link to the snowe bill?..
Matt...those laws already exist. However you have 2 problems. The first is that the other domain existed before yours. Second is that trademark laws don't protect descriptive language. You can't TM the term "car dealer" and be a car dealer. Basically you're screwed legally. I just feel bad for you and I agree the asking price of the seller is wrong (my opinion only people)...
Nothing like an anti-domainer rant on a domaining forum..
I'm not anti domainer i'm a small time domainer myself ,but I was just curious to know where I stood on this issue, and thanks for everyones comments..
You probably could, in the US they can sue for just about anything. Whether you'd win and whether it would cost you less than the asking price for the domain is probably the $10k question here. He does have the .co.uk - how many domains does a legitimate website need? There are 300+ TLDs now in the market, how far does a common usage 'tm' go - geographically speaking? And I thought the great US of A was founded on the firm ideals of capitalism, since when did it become communist? Oh you mean the ordinary people like the mom and pop store owners over at http://www.cadna.org/en/members.html The world certainly seems to be bending backwards to make money for these companies.
Though today there seems to be some good news, the EFF has commented against the bill too - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03...demark-fair-us.
Here are some possible real world scenarios if this was to become law - http://www.namepros.com/2597261-post75.html.
This is way beyond domains and into the area of intellectual property now. Even countries haven't been able to figure that out completely.
As far as the Snowe bill goes - it's sole purpose is to give carte blanche to American companies with overpaid and underworked legal departments to take away .com and .net domains from smaller companies who might not be willing and/or be able to fight cases in US court.
It is reverse domain hijacking / phishing at the highest level of the game...
Well, when we finally do get Snowe'd in by this poorly drafted bill I plan to fight back. I figure pretty much every major us corporation has has violated my rights by using their domain names to Phish for my personal data. So long as the bill doesn't require proof that the data aquired is actually used for wrongdoing there isn't any difference between phishing and legitimate information gathering for business purposes.
I figure I can get microsoft.com along with hefty damages because microsoft wants to know my copy of windows is registered. HP, Dell, Acer, Ebay, Amazon, ect should all fall to me in short order. Couple in 3Mil in damages for each and I'll be setting pretty. All of these companies have managed to get some of my money through profiling and marketing their products to me. Therefore I have proof that they were actively using the data they Phished from me when I visited their websites to take advantage of me. (I'm the poor unsupecting consumer.).
Snowe, and the starter of this thread have something in common. They both see that there is a problem. They are both just going about it the wrong way hoping for a cheap easy solution.
The reality is that there will eventually have to be some type of anti-monopoly domain law established. I think this person who is asking way too much for his domain does have that right. On a small scale I don't see a problem with it. It is his domain. He got there first. If you want the domain, pay what he asks.
When fidel castro took over cuba, one of the laws he put into place was a restriction that prevented any one non-government entity from owning more than five acres of land. This was an interesting move because it allows for a level of free capitolism to survive within the balance of a more socialist structure. I feel this type of arrangement would benefit the web as a whole. If ownership was limited to say 50 domains that would be enough that any legitimate person or business could thrive and still limit expansive growth that borders on monopolistic.
I can think of a number of undeveloped domains that I would love to own, and would immediately develop. I will never be able to aquire them. Check http://www.nameadministration.com/ for a pretty good list. It really gets under my skin that they have a .com for a .net I own and have developed. Still I realize that they do have that right. They did get to it first. I really feel for you, but truthfully the seller is in the right...
Thanks for all the posts, I can see the fair points on both sides, I do appreciate everyones input in this, just if I owned the .com I would of made it into a great educational resource, looks like ill just have to continue to be a niche forum for entrepreneurs in the UK..