Domain Name sharing isn’t a new concept. A new research paper examining trademark disputes and domain name sharing, by Professor Jacqueline Lipton of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, just published.This article addresses the possibility of domain name sharing being facilitated through a more formalized system that could be implemented under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (”UDRP”?).7 This could lead to better data about when sharing might be effective, more sharing in appropriate cases, and ultimately to the development of new sharing norms through privately negotiated arrangements. The UDRP would also have the advantage of being a low cost, efficient, and effectively global option, if expanded to include domain name sharing.
I browsed around this paper without getting into every word in it. For current domain owners, those of us who worked to build our portfolios over time, putting everything on the line to achieve the American Dream, this is more like like “domain name stealing” than “sharing”.
Yet another way to wrestle the one with limited resources out of their rightful ownership.
Related ASSISTA Searches:
Sahar:
I read her paper and I completely agree with you. Ms. Lipton’s Socialist suggestions are anti-free market and amount to nothing less than an eminent domain policy that also opens the door to a new variety of reverse name hijacking. However, I found one of her most revealing statements on page 4 where she says more generic TLDs could have provided a solution, but that most people still prefer .com (page 11 also extolls the power of .com).
Nevertheless, no one should lose too much sleep over this. I doubt that Delta Airlines is going to peacefully surrender Delta.com (her domain example) so there can be links on it for Delta Financial, Delta Faucets amd DeltaComm Internet Services.
Having only read the cover, the whole concept of domain ownerhip in the context of trademark law does raise some questions. If Delta Airlines owns Delta.com, and Delta Airlines had a financing subsidiary, yet Delta Financial had trademark rights to all things “Delta Financial”, then Delta Airlines might in effect be limited as to how to use the domain name by trademark law. I believe the trademarks trump the domain. Now, assuming Delta Air does not have a competing financing arm, would it be totally unreasonable that as a good and decent corporate neighbor, that Delta Airlines, at the bottom of their site, provide links such as “If your’re looking for Delta Financial”, “If you’re looking for Delta Faucets”, etc..? If I get a phone call meant for my neighbor, I am happy to give the caller my neighbor’s number. Helping both. Costing me nothing. I guess, only in the land of “every bit of traffic can make me money” would this not happen. This is not to suggest that I want regulation to determine this for me. But, typically, if the business community solves the problem before regulators feel compelled to solve it for them, all side win. Ultimately, I believe we will ultimately come to a different way of looking at domain names, not all, but many. The concept of fractional ownership has been discussed on this fine site previously. I believe we will see this “online real estate” evolve like typical real estate has. In the example above, assuming Delta Faucets, Financial, and Airline each had sufficient trademark rights that limited the use of the url by the other “Delta” regardless of which owned the domain name, the answer might be to fractionalize the domain name itself.. to the best interest of all three (or 4, 5..). I’ve articulated this theory in my CondoMains post. If 3 parties has equally compelling rights to a name, and none could fully utilize it because of the existing rights of other(s), then why not have joint ownership? All three of them with equal representation on the index page. None doing any harm to the other. All three more than happy to promote the url without worry of losing business or traffic. Sharing the expense, cutting costs to market by 66.6% each. If allowing the UDRP to come up with a force fed answer instead is a scary thought. Domain name condominiums. Check back in 5 years, I dont think it will sound so humerous.
Mr. Castello is right on the money.
On the other hand, Mr Fontaine’s comments are absolutely ridiculous. His statement that, “All three more than happy to promote the url without worry of losing business or traffic” left me scratching my head. I checked his site. He owns some decent domains, but no great ones and perhaps this is the reason he would be so generous with other people’s assets.
Mr. Rideronthestorm, if that’s your real name, i’m sorry you thought my comments were rediculous. And I hope that scratching your head somehow helped you to form your conclusion about me. I was discussing a theory whereas when multiple parties might have trademark rights to a generic, that it may, in some cases, make sense for them to partition, or condominiumize a url, so that instead of none of them being able to utilize the name, each of them could. It was just sharing a thought. I state in the post “This is not to suggest that I want regulation to determine this for me”. And also “If allowing the UDRP to come up with a force fed answer instead is a scary thought.”. So I was not condoning Lipton’s concept, I was attmepting to address an alternative method for some business to handle the such situations instead of it always being a lose-lose situation because they’ve “landlocked” themselves with trademarks. I make no suggestion that any of us give up any rights to what we’ve legally aquired, often at considerable expense. None whatsover. Regarding my names, i’ve never claimed to have great nor even good names. You think I gave my opinion and thoughts above because I have an interest in someone elses domains? Then you are mistaken. Sorry you took it that way.
Domain Rider On The Storm, thank you for your comment. Mr Fontaine, the biggest problem I have with Ms Lipton’s proposal is that there is really no need for it. Delta Facets can be DeltaFacets.com, Delta Financial can be DeltaFinancial.com, etc and all can live happily ever after.
Delta Airlines acquired Delta.com. And good for them. There is no reason they should be forced to share the generic marketability of Delta.com with anyone else. This is what a free market is all about. What Ms Lipton is proposing is analagous to The Boston Globe (who owns Boston.com) having to share the front page of Boston.com with the Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau, etc. I can assure you that the Boston Globe would spend every penny they have in litigation to make sure that never happens.
Your hypothesis that “It will not result in any loss of business or traffic…” is idealistic and illogical. Any parking company will tell you that if you one run advertisement on a page it will receive more traffic and revenue than if you run five advertisements for different companies.
There is a lot of direct navigation traffic with some of these generic domain names. Direct navigation equals revenue. And I don’t fault Corporate America (or their attorneys) for trying to find a creative way to grab a piece of it. But believe me, Domain Name Sharing is nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I appreciate what your saying and don’t disagree a bit. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I agree with or condone any entity forcing anyone else to delete the value of a domain name for any reason. I DONT. As a real estate broker, I am completely against the concept of eminant domain. And for the same reasons, I am also against that same concept with regard to online real estate.
I was addressing less the virtues of Lipton’s concept, which I stated I hadn’t even read, but the concept of multiple parties with non directly-competing interest, who may be burdered by the trademarks of each other, to work together to solve those problems.
If John Doe owned Boston.com (who’s offices i’ve enjoyed visiting in my dealings with the Globe) And John said to The Globe “I’ll sell you the top right tile” and then said to The Chamber “I’ll sell you the top left time’, I can envision a scenerio where each might be happy to co-exist in that space. But I am talking free market, where the parties are doing this because of choice.
If John didin’t want to do that, he should have to, and Liption, UDRP nor anyone else should have any right or create any right that enables them to do so. I am NOT condoming that concept. And obviously, that right of ownership includes the right to earn money from parking or whatever else the domain name owner wants to do with their property. I want to make that clear, I am not in anyway disagreeing with your contempt for that proposal. I share it with you.
Mr. Fontaine:
Yes, I agree with you. If the idea is suggestive, I believe there are some sites that wouldn’t reject what amounts to a potentially lucrative advertising situation.
However, I believe Ms Lipton is suggesting something that she wishes to become compulsory through new ICANN rules. In that case, she’s basically promoting a Socialist situation that creates a form of partial reverse name hijacking. I also believe that in her “Delta Airlines sharing Delta.com” scenario, she would not be promoting the idea if she was an attorney for the airline.
Heh, John B commented on another paper written by that very same author:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/udrp_trademark_protection_political_process/
Other paper in question:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982430
John Berryhill’s comments (#1 & #2) about her are hilarious.