MetaFilter posts tagged with cybersquatting

When CyberSquatting Laws go bad....

Mr_Chips — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:10:33 -0800

Nissan vs Nissan, or David vs Goliath Nissan, who used to be Datsun is alledging cybersquatting and suing Nissan, who has always been Nissan, for $10 MILLION in damages...

He's probably right, I can't tell the difference either

magullo — Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:58:47 -0800

Michael Savage claims that his listeners can't tell the difference between michaelsavage.com (the link didn't work? oops!) and savagestupidity.com, apparently not aware that in these days of cybersquatting, it pays to NOT pick you AKA from the dictionary.

And while on the subject, let it be known that he who now calls homosexual "perverts" was once on "dear" terms with Allen Ginsberg

th3ph17 — Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:54:15 -0800

An inventive way to get cybersquatter off your domain. [page 3 & 4] Anyone have any great domain theft/squatting stories? My office just won a domain battle, and was served papers for another soon after. Life Goes on...[also tidbits on the motivations of congress in passing domain-use laws.]

tranquileye — Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:15:05 -0800

A CNN parody site gets bigfooted. "Defendant's actions constitute a textbook case of cyberpiracy under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. CNN and its marks are suffering irreparable harm as a result of Defendant's actions, and they will continue to unless and until Defendant is enjoined." Yeah, right.

rodii — Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:38:10 -0800

Eco-celebri-conscious cybersquatting?
Elizabeth-Taylor.com, anybody?
PopeJohnPaulI.com? [dead, alas]
JonasSalk.com? Sure, we got that…
Margaret Mead, Jerry Brown, Noam Chomsky? No problem.
Danny Thomas??Jerry Lewis???
…and don't miss the popups. (Warning: annoying and pointless.)

tiaka — Fri, 02 Jun 2000 08:54:02 -0800

Julia wins

PaperCut — Sat, 13 May 2000 15:05:51 -0800

verizonREALLYsucks Be good, or I'll sic the AntiCyberSquat on you!

Mick — Tue, 09 May 2000 06:57:34 -0800

Verizon Wireless is jumping on the copyright lawsuit bandwagon. This time they're picking on 2600. Me thinks they're playing with fire.

baylink — Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:00:42 -0800

I don't believe it... I actually agree with something Network Solutions has done. They've apparently changed their policy to make domain name squatting more difficult. The story sounds sympathetic to the two ladies in question, but I'm not. Ok, maybe they should have been a touch more careful in how they *rolled out* the new policy, but the policy itself is about 5 years overdue.

Now, if we could just get them to *do what we tell them to*...

Cheers,
-- jra

mathowie — Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:17:21 -0800

The VW vs. Virtual Works case is a lot like the eToys vs. ETOY battle. The vw.net site is owned by a small ISP that has been using it for the last few years, but VW is saying that their brand is diluted and their trademarks infringed when another company uses the initials "vw". Like the eToys case, it looks like Volkswagon has convinced a court of this and will be taking the domain soon. If you remember the different top level domains, .org is for non-profits and organizations, .com is for commercial ventures and corporations, and .net is for network companies and network providers. One would think an ISP qualifies for a .net, and that VW should be perfectly happy with their .com domain, or am I missing something here?