[DNS] Regarding cybersquatting

[DNS] Regarding cybersquatting

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin§melbourneit.com.au>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:28:07 +1000
Hello Ron,

> Bruce, the secondary art market is possible because a work of 
> art is complete and has value in and of itself.  

A secondary domain name market is possible as each domain name is
unique, just as each painting is unique.

Different domain names have different market value.   The auction of
generic names in .com.au was an example of this.

> A domain 
> name is worthless unless it has some attached commercial 
> objective - even if it is solely as a vehicle for advertising.

A domain is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

> Whilst in principle I agree that there's a difference between 
> cyber squatting and transferring a domain name, it's 
> subjective, so how can you discriminate between cyber 
> squatting and a secondary market?

Cybersquatting is basically illegal, and applies to both the primary
market and secondary market.

There is established precedent through UDRP decisions and .auDRP
decisions, as well as probably court decisions (at least overseas) to
identify when a domain name is being used to infringe trademark rights.

Transferring a licence is purely a matter of the rules defined by the
industry for the licensing of domain names. 

Oh yeah - congratulations to Sydney for a close victory over West Coast!

Received on Sat Sep 24 2005 - 07:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC