WIPO Rules Against Sting 161
FlyingSheep writes "British pop star Sting has lost a case at an international panel to evict the holder of the Internet address sting.com, becoming the first celebrity to suffer such a defeat" This is pretty good news... Words in the dictionary are totally different then, say, JuliaRoberts.com. An interesting stat in the article is that 81% of the WIPO rulings have led to an eviction. Unfortunately the WIPO sided with Microsoft over the Microsof.com domain name: Typo sites should be allowed (and I even get flame mail because of the various Slashdot typo sites!)
Sting my... (Score:1)
What he should have tried... (Score:1)
Re:Speaking of Domain disputes (Score:1)
As the story has played out, the person running corinthians.org apparently only started putting biblical content online after the dispute came about.
Re:A funny story on typo sites (Score:1)
Typo sites should not be allowed (Score:1)
Typo sites are obviously all evil, pornography, which could never contribute anything to the internet, and we should allow corporations to requisition typo sites whenever they would like.
----------------------------
Oh you're right (Score:2)
----------------------------
Re:Speaking of Domain disputes (Score:3)
Not only that, but the guy who owned corinthians.com had been using it legitimately for years - for something related to the book of Corinthians, which has obviously been around a lot longer than the soccer team.
BTW, in case anyone's curious, the book of Corinthians is a letter written by Paul to the church in Corinth (the Corinthian church).
--
Re:Story makes for interesting headlines (Score:1)
Here's one... (Score:2)
Re:typo sites (Score:1)
Re:Sting taken by Tolkien Enterprises (Score:1)
Re:Name disputes (Score:1)
Re:"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:2)
If you're selling something unrelated (or not selling anything at all) and just happen to have a coincidentally close name, it isn't illegal under basic trademark law.
The PayPaI people may be violating PayPal's trademark -- but not through the domain name alone.
--
Not really (Score:1)
Most likely this was a mistake but we can all hope can't we?
--Jason
--Jason--
Somewhat OT (Score:2)
Kinda makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, eh? =)
Re:Typo sites (Score:1)
Typo in Wired headline (Score:2)
What's in a name? (Score:1)
Also, keep in mind that you can have multiple businesses under the same name if they do substantially different business. For example, I could create a business that specializes in small-scale manufacturing called "Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)" and the AMD that manufactures CPUs could do nothing about it.. we're not in the same market.
Just some food for thought.
Re:Typo sites SHOULD be allowed? (Score:2)
You do realize that any attempts to shut down a site like whitehouse.com would be met with cries of "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!"
I don't see any reason why they ought to be constitutionally protected in doing so.
I agree, and I hope they WON'T be protected. And typo sites do exactly what you state: They're deliberately trying to mislead people.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Typo sites SHOULD be allowed? (Score:3)
Um....must I bring up the issue of Paypai?
A typo-based domain serves absolutely NO purpose other than to snag traffic intended for other pages.
Obviously, this would (in theory) be protected by free speech, it still presents a problem in that, less technical users who decide they want to visit a certain webpage either misspell it, or enter the wrong TLD - bringing them to content that is almost certainly not what they were looking for. (Read: whitehouse.com over whitehouse.gov)
Basically, if the only way these sites have to generate traffic is by using similar domain names to popular sites, one has to wonder if these rip-offs should even exist in the first place.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Somewhat OT (Score:1)
The world is not as simple as some Slashdot articles make it sound.
Re:Somewhat OT (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot imposters! (Score:2)
Seems like almost any simple transposition gets you something:
slahsdot.org [slahsdot.org]
salshdot.org [salshdot.org]
But lsashdot.org [lsashdot.org] is still available!
Where are you drawing your line in the sand Rob? (Score:1)
'cept if your name is Julia Roberts.... Is there any reason why Julia Roberts (the actor) has any greater/lesser claim to JuliaRoberts.com than any other Julia Roberts? (.com tld being as defining as it is these days...)
M@T
Re:Where are you drawing your line in the sand Rob (Score:1)
True... but the question was why Rob determined that Julia Roberts was somehow a different case just because 'sting' was a dictionary word whereas Julia Roberts is not...
Re:"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:2)
No, I don't. But I think it is ok for you to sell shoes or computers and call them Coka Cola. (Kinda a weird name for a computer, but whatever..) I also think you should be able to use "cokacola.com" as your domain. And if you want to put a web site in that domain, that's fine too. There really isn't any problem unless you start using the domain in such a way as to trick people into thinking that you are Coca Cola.
---
Re:microsfot.com (Score:2)
Hmm.. I wonder what the chances are that someone might mistake that for Microsoft's web site. Let's call that probability P. I assert that the probability of it infringing upon someone's trademark to be exactly equal to P.8
---
Re:Typo sites SHOULD be allowed? (Score:3)
What they were doing was fraud. The domain name could have been foo.com and what they did would have still been wrong.
So? Provided that there isn't any misrepresentation, I don't see a problem. If I go to microsotf.com and find a "Microsoft sucks and you shouldn't ever buy their crap" page, I would have to be pretty darn stupid to believe that I was looking at Microsoft's page.
Note: I'm not defending sites that do misrepresent or attempt to deceive, like the aforementioned paypai.
---
Re:Here's one... (Score:1)
What he should have tried.. (Score:1)
Common words not allowed? (Score:1)
Bummer, man...
So who owns participles? "a.com" would be nice...
Re:"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:1)
Re:What he should have tried... (Score:1)
by the WIPO as evidence he was a cyber squatter?
Speaking of typo sites (Score:2)
Re:Somewhat OT (Score:1)
"The Santa Monica, Calif.-based company reported a net loss of $45.36 million, or a 37-cent loss per a share for the first quarter, excluding compensation and goodwill amortization costs. For the same quarter a year ago, the comparable net loss was $16.92 million, or a 17-cent loss.
Wall Street analysts on average had expected the company to post a loss of 39 cents a share, according to First Call/Thomson Financial, which tracks earnings data. "
Of course, the NASDAQ has been ass this week and it's dropping today, even though they performed better than can be expected. Ohwell.. I'm a minor stockholder in this, and am just hoping they do one last advertising blitz before x-mas, and then I'll just sell.. should be easy $ for anyone who wants to get in, it's just a game of who's caught holding the bag last in this one.
-1 offtopic
Re:Well naturally... (Score:2)
Seriously, considering today's haphazard WIPO rulings, I bet Yahoo would give Mr. Serious 5 million dollars just to go away.
Kevin Fox
Re:Well naturally... (Score:2)
If I buy a domain, build a brand, and years later someone else comes along, gets VC funding, build a bigger brand (or say, Nike launches the 'Fury' sub-brand of shoe and pours millions into marketing) then is my name forfeit because they got more popular faster?
I realize this isn't the issue in the Sting case because Sting predated the web, but where is the line drawn?
People shouldn't confuse these things with trademark disputes. the trademark namespace allows for identical trademarks in non-competing industries. To say that Sting should have sting.com because of a trademark issue is saying that Sting in an Internet Company, and has a trademark related to that internet company.
for example, I could market a brand of skateboards called Trix, but I couldn't market a cereal called Trix, because that would conflict. Similarly, it isn't right to say that marketing a web site called sting.com is conflicting with an artist called Sting.
Kevin Fox
Well naturally... (Score:3)
Next you'd have people changing their legal names just so they could get coveted domain names. Maybe that was Yahoo Serious's plan all along!
Kevin Fox
Sting alredy has his own name-domain: (Score:3)
Kevin Fox
Re:"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:1)
There are lots of places which call themselves the 'Rock Hard Cafe', with a very similar logo.
Re:"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:1)
There's the 'Hard Rock Cafe', which is a chain.
There are also 'Rock Hard Cafe's, which are trying to
Re:typo sites (Score:2)
This is the 'Wrong spelling, moron!' one...
Re:sting was wronged (Score:2)
Re:sting was wronged (Score:2)
Re:sting was wronged (Score:2)
sting was wronged (Score:3)
Re:Slashdot imposters! (Score:1)
Re:paypai.com (Score:1)
Anybody bother to verify juliaroberts.com? (Score:2)
Re:Name disputes (Score:1)
A funny story on typo sites (Score:4)
About three years ago I used to work at a local Israeli ISP, doing customer support. Being a shift supervisor, I had to deal with all the complaints from the customers.
Ones I got a really furious lady. Before I got to say a single word, she started shouting at me: "you should all be ashame of yourself! This is unexceptable! I got little kids here
I tried to calm her down and find out what was the problem, but she kept saying something about email account and mentioning she have little kids there.
After a lot time (working at customer support requires lots of patience, after all
After all, english wasn't her native language
There is only HTTP! (Score:1)
Aside from the obvious stupidity of assuming that the only valid use of a domain is for HTTP, there is the additional presumption that a person who registers a domain has to hurry up and use it now. Then they have to prove they mean it by having "regular" updates. How about an annual update? is that sufficient?
In short: dumb ideas!
What is a typo? (Score:1)
hotbat.com (right now a XXX site, but could be a baseball site next year or something)
hkbot.com (a site that could be made as a tribute to hunter-killer robots)
jotbot.com (an oddly empty site now, but could someday be an online notepad or something)
The list could go on and on but comes down to this: just because you think something's a typo doesn't mean it's bad or illegit!
typo sites (Score:2)
Now I'm curious. Can anyone post a list of some of the typo sites (preferably with links)?
Re:sting was wronged (Score:1)
=)
Re:What is a typo? (Score:1)
One time at work I made the mistake of typing "buy.com" as "boy.com." Was I ever thankful that the only thing the proxy retrieved was a text page that said "Please wait 5 seconds to be redirected to youngnastysluts.com." I didn't even need one second to SLAM on the close button in my browser.
Typo sites (Score:3)
Don't penalize people for their inability to spell by giving them a flood of banners, porn, and malicious Javascript. Try misspelling some popular sites' names. You'd be surprised.
Oh well (Score:1)
Re:Story makes for interesting headlines (Score:1)
Re:Sting taken by Tolkien Enterprises (Score:1) [tolkien-ent.com]
Misty Mountains is listed. Not like they would come after you (I've never heard of Tolkien-ent being like Fox or Paramount) most likely...
Sting taken by Tolkien Enterprises (Score:4)
Anyone desiring to use one or more of the Tolkien fanciful names and/or characters in connection with merchandise, stage adaptations, or services offered to the public is requested to submit a written proposal to Laurie Battle, Director of Licensing, 2600 Tenth Street, Berkeley, California 94710.
list of things and events [tolkien-ent.com] (there are also other lists, one for characters, and one for places).
[...]
Sindarin
Smials
Sting
Stone of Erech
talan
[...]
Re:sting was wronged (Score:2)
---- ----
Sure... (Score:2)
Re:Story makes for interesting headlines (Score:2)
Follow the Prince (Score:1)
theartistformerlyknownassting.com
hehe... kiss my arse Sting you were too late on the domain. You and your corporate wheezebags should have jumped on the Internet before the 21st century. Anyway, maybe if you're nice and you cough up enough cash then you can get the site. I can see BritneySpears.com or Metallica.com (aghh), but trying to sue for Sting.com... whatever, thank you try another word.
JOhn
Re:Typo. (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Sting taken by Tolkien Enterprises (Score:1)
Hah! Now sting has a legitimate reason to use... (Score:2)
No court will turn him down now!
So now it's yay for WIPO? (Score:2)
Wasn't it just last week that they evicted corinthians.com ?
-Todd
---
Re:a twist (Score:2)
I didn't read the link behind that one because it sounded like yet another case where the little guy got stepped on.
And as far as "It's a step in the right direction for WIPO" goes, sure... I agree with that. However, given WIPO's track record, I think it's gonna take a lot more than one case before we could truly say that they changed their tune.
-Todd
---
Re:Well naturally... (Score:1)
But it's not trademarked. Furthermore, sting.com has nothing to do with Sting the musician.
Re:Typo sites SHOULD be allowed? (Score:1)
--
-jacob
Re:Typo sites SHOULD be allowed? (Score:4)
Why? Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean that everything that you do by talking is legal. After all, con artists and social engineers are just talking, but they are talking with intent to deceive someone else into doing something that they wouldn't otherwise do (give them money, sensitive data, etc). If one could prove that a particular typo site (such as PayPai.com) was deliberately trying to mislead people, I don't see any reason why they ought to be constitutionally protected in doing so.
--
-jacob
Re:Sting alredy has his own name-domain: (Score:1)
Re:Sting taken by Tolkien Enterprises (Score:1)
--
Hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Glaswegian.
which sting? (Score:2)
This kind of stuff could quickly lead to popularity contests - who's the better known Sting?
I mean, who's going to be looking for the WCW wrestler Sting [wcw.com]?
Prior Art (Score:1)
The rationale here is interesting... (Score:2)
While the fact that Sting is a common english word was mentioned, it apparently was not the rationale for the decision. Rather, it was found that the current holder of the domain had not registered it in bad faith. One of the several requirements to evict someone from a domain is indeed the bad faith element.
While, on the face, that looks like a very sound reason (the current owner is known as sting in his online community, and has a real, if cluelessly constructed, site occupying it,) it makes me very suspicious. I've read through reams of prior cases, and this is the first time I've seen WIPO dismiss a case brought by anyone "important" on these grounds. The bad faith clause normally gets a rubberstamp, even when the evidence presented for it seems quite weak.
I've gotta be a little cynical at this point and wonder who in Sting pissed off.
Story makes for interesting headlines (Score:3)
Or
Sting.com Stings Sting Over Sting Name
"He named himself a verb, present tense! He's not stinging, he's not stung, he's STING!" -Dana Carvey
Re:cybersquatters (Score:3)
I was recently in a situation where one of my client's domains was being disputed by a rather large company in New York. The domain was actually their company name but spelled incorrectly (while it correctly spelled my client's company name, it's a situation with using one or two x's). What got me was the attitude on the part of this large company stating "since we have the trademark then we own the domain regardless of whether we, you or anybody has registered it". I find this hard to believe.
my client ended up giving the domain to the large company under threat of lawsuits for over $10,000,000. he basically figured that although he wouldn't lose the case, the hassle involved with getting an attorney and flying to new york would be too much.
I was hoping to see him fight it out for many reasons, the ethics of it and to stick it to big business, but that didn't work out.
abuse of domain rights (Score:2)
Incidentally, you can find a nice collection of these blurbs here [domainhandbook.com].
All in all, its most people with money for lawyers trampling on people without, and it is generally just disgusting abuse of IP law. The guy who once owned [cnet.com] tatooine.com doesn't have it any more. And there's not even a web page there.
One obvious indication of squatting is people mass-registering domain names. But I'd say unless squatting is clear, first come, first serve. And even with a squatter, they should be reimbursed for all domain fees paid.
I'm just thankful we have 2600 to push some buttons [wired.com] and stand up for people.
Re:paypai.com (Score:3)
Needless to say, anything that went wrong with cable would end up with us getting calls about it. The best part was that the phone had a different ring for off campus calls, so we always knew when it was about cable.
We would answer it "Cable Customer Service", and tell people we would send a truck right out. Nobody ever caught the fact that we didn't ask them where they lived first.
Sometimes we would ask them where they lived, they would tell us, and we would tell them cable was out in that area, and should be back up in under 48 hours. We would then tell them that we wouldn't be charging them anything for their cable service that month.
We never did bill them, so I suppose its all true enough, but we started getting calls from lawyers anyway. We did show the proper respect for the situation, and told them we would stop, while we proceded to give phony help. Being well in debt from student loans can give you an inordinate amount of confidence of your chances in a civil suit.
Now if he had taken the name of "Stink" (Score:2)
alta-vista.com (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
There is already a .tm (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Typo. (Score:2)
If I own Macrosoft, and parody MicroSoft, I dn't feel I should have to use it.
Of course legal action should be taking against people who misrepresent them selfs, or take money and not provide reasonable sereves expected by the customer.
example:
say I own a domain called Psypal.com
And I use this site to parady paypal.com, on this site I talk about you sending us your creditcard number by thinking real loud. obviosly a parady. but if I imply that I am paypal, so I can get money from you, wipo should step in.
as far as famous people trying to get there domain name, espcially one thats a verb, I don't feel they have the right to do so. I should have every right to talk about a famous person if I want to, and start a group of people who wish to do the same.
microsfot.com (Score:2)
since people are speaking of typo sites. (as you probably know, it's a site linking to anti-microsoft products.
________
paypai.com (Score:3)
A close-sounding name with a real, legitimate purpose is one thing, but purposely deceiving people is bad. and if they think they are at a site they are not, it can harm the company who is being "typoed"
I had a phone number 1 digit off from USWest when I was in college, and we'd get at least 20 wrong numbers a day. I started answering the phone "hello, this is uswest, how can I assist you" and usually they would buy it. Anyone they asked for, I'd say that they were fired. Not really my fault (I swear) but if I intentionally set up a phone company number for a competing company just 1 digit away so I could take their business, it would be wrong. And it's happened.
________
a short list (Score:2)
dosney [dosney.com] is not Disney
disny [disny.com] is not Disney
yehoo [yehoo.com] is not yahoo
yaoo [yaoo.com] is not Yahoo
suckdot [suckdot.com] used to be a parody site
bigfot [yehoo.com] is not bigfoot
Many of these sites have gotten legal letters of late, as they used to link direclty to porn sites (eg. dosney).
"Typo" sites should NOT be allowed (Score:4)
This is basic trademark law, and it is (and should be) illegal.
Re:So now it's yay for WIPO? (Score:2)
Re:Well naturally... (Score:2)
That said, I'm glad he lost the suit.
(If I hear that "Desert Rose" song one more time...)
Re:a short list (Score:2)
This site is dedicated to my great uncle, Mr. Yul Laag Dosney, who swore on his deathbed he wanted to be remembered forever.
Then it proceeds to display pop-up ads and porn. Just what Great Unle Dosney loved the most.
Re:typo sites (Score:2)
Re:Story makes for interesting headlines (Score:2)
Fortunately, she has a good sense of humor about it.
Sting stung (Score:3)
Serves him right for using such a pretentious name.
Re:cybersquatters (Score:2)
As I understand it, cybersquatting laws in the US are not applicable to individuals, only to companies. This is, AFAIK, technically the case in the UK too. However, I know one author won her name back recently in court.
No, Cybersquatting applies to anyone with a trading use of the name. The tort is called "passing-off" (it's called something different in the states) and the essence of it is using someone else's commercially-valuable name. If it would mislead a consumer other than "a moron in a hurry" (the actual test under UK law!) then it's passing off, and punishable by damages and an injunction to restrain further use.
At the moment, here in the UK, you can only get a remedy through the courts for
.uk domains, until such time as we get WIPO recognition at our tld people, which should be soon.
On a related note (Score:3)
People, if you think you've got a right to a domain, defend it! If the possessor of microsoft.org had sought to use it as a "Microsoft sucks" site or something along those lines, he might have had a fighting chance at keeping it! (Of course, it seems that he may have been squatting on the domain, though we don't know since he never answered for himself.)
It's hard to complain about an 81% failure rate when the defendants are doing nothing.
yours,
john
No name registration (Score:2)
OTOH, the estate of Princess Diana did manage to get her name registered, but I think they used some way round the standard law. Something to do with a "seal of approval" using her name.
If you do want to protect your name, the best thing to do is to set up a company named after you. This should also protect the domain name better than just being called that name. Even this is frought(sp?) with difficulties. Harrods once sued a Mr Harood (I think) for trading under his own name. I don't remember the outcome, though.
yours,
Arieh
cybersquatters (Score:3)
For example, say I wanted to make a fan-pic site of Julia Roberts (not that i have the time or inclination). That would be a fair use of the name, and I doubt she'd be able to win it back. Things get a bit complicated if I'm only holding the domain for ransom, however.
As I understand it, cybersquatting laws in the US are not applicable to individuals, only to companies. This is, AFAIK, technically the case in the UK too. However, I know one author won her name back recently in court.
The company I work for (One of the biggest European online traders) has been cybersqatted like mad. We are sure that people have set up non-trading companies to stop us being able to get the domains back.
The real issue is of the legal status of domain names. I don't see why they shouldn't be a commodity like, say, number plates. Just because I have a number plate on my car with J R0838TS doesn't mean that Julia Roberts has the right to sue me, or win my plate that I paid for. As long as I'm not pretending I'm Julia Roberts (pretty hard considering....) I'm not doing anything wrong.
Now I know the legal status of domain names is contentious anyway, and the Law is effectivly being written by these rulings. It just seems to me that if you didn't buy it, you shouldn't get it.
yours,
Arieh