Comments on: MGM Loses Bid for WarGames.com http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/ Domain Name Industry News and Views Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: A Little Bit.ly Sharia? Tech Business Builds on Libya Domain « Creeping Sharia http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/comment-page-1/#comment-540226 A Little Bit.ly Sharia? Tech Business Builds on Libya Domain « Creeping Sharia Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:04:05 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/#comment-540226 [...] warned about the dangers of country code top level domains. Rogers Cadenhead made some interesting observations about Bit.ly, a URL shortening service that just scored $2M in [...]

[...] warned about the dangers of country code top level domains. Rogers Cadenhead made some interesting observations about Bit.ly, a URL shortening service that just scored $2M in [...]

]]> By: Domain Name Wire » News » Bit.ly and the Dangers of ccTLDs - The Domain Industry's News Source http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/comment-page-1/#comment-373256 Domain Name Wire » News » Bit.ly and the Dangers of ccTLDs - The Domain Industry's News Source Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:41:01 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/#comment-373256 [...] warned about the dangers of country code top level domains. Rogers Cadenhead made some interesting observations about Bit.ly, a URL shortening service that just scored $2M in [...]

[...] warned about the dangers of country code top level domains. Rogers Cadenhead made some interesting observations about Bit.ly, a URL shortening service that just scored $2M in [...]

]]> By: mike http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/comment-page-1/#comment-34403 mike Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:07:10 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/#comment-34403 I don\'t have any stats, but I would estimate that about 1/3 of UDRP\'s concerning 3-letter domains are decided in favor of the complainant. I don\'t think a 3-letter domain should be taken away from its original owner for any reason. I don\’t have any stats, but I would estimate that about 1/3 of UDRP\’s concerning 3-letter domains are decided in favor of the complainant. I don\’t think a 3-letter domain should be taken away from its original owner for any reason.

]]> By: Editor http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/comment-page-1/#comment-33832 Editor Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:34:18 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/#comment-33832 Mike, do you have any stats about the three character domains? Big companies often overstep reasonable bounds, such as <a href"http://domainnamewire.com/2006/12/04/louis-vuitton-loses-case-for-lvcom/" rel="nofollow">Louis Vuitton going for LV.com</a>. Mike, do you have any stats about the three character domains?

Big companies often overstep reasonable bounds, such as Louis Vuitton going for LV.com.

]]> By: mike http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/comment-page-1/#comment-33733 mike Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:22:54 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/07/mgm-loses-bid-for-wargamescom/#comment-33733 The UDRP is a joke. It essentially subjects americans to foreign courts. It is reason #1 why The United States should not give up control of the internet. I recently reviewed every 3-letter domain WIPO case and was shocked at how many of these domains were taken away from their original owners. If you can't own a 3-letter domain and feel secure then what is the point in owning any generic domain? If you glance over the lists of all WIPO disputes you will see hundreds of people have had their obviolusly generic domains stolen from them. Does anyone remember when JCrew stole crew.com? Here is what FRank Schilling had to say on the subject in his open letter to ICANN: I am writing to protest your policies and your perception of "Bad Faith" in regard to the holding of domain names. I feel your addition of peoples names, geographical areas and tradenames is oppressive to existing domain holders and smacks of "internet micro-management". You are quickly moving down a path of where domain holders rights to their registered names are constantly called into question. This creates uncertainty in the name space, stymies capitalism, limits growth potential on the web and will inevitably lead to a backlash. The real reason for your tough stance is incredibly transparent and shallow. You are selling hope to the millions of people who failed to register their domain name of choice. Your are offering these people a soft shoulder to cry on, a chance to re-write history and some teeth to take existing name-holders rights away. The reprocusions of your arbitrators actions are far reaching. You are attempting to legislate the internet's future growth. Domain names "are the Internet" and I feel your liase-fair attitude and your arbitrators liberal interpretation of "Bad Faith" is doing ireperable harm to the name space. Your actions show incredible lack of judgement and bad faith in of themselves. The internet was created in America at the American tax payers expense. Your arbitrators actions could not run more counter to the American ideals of capitalism and oportunity for all. Frank Schilling The UDRP is a joke. It essentially subjects americans to foreign courts. It is reason #1 why The United States should not give up control of the internet.
I recently reviewed every 3-letter domain WIPO case and was shocked at how many of these domains were taken away from their original owners.
If you can’t own a 3-letter domain and feel secure then what is the point in owning any generic domain?
If you glance over the lists of all WIPO disputes you will see hundreds of people have had their obviolusly generic domains stolen from them.
Does anyone remember when JCrew stole crew.com?
Here is what FRank Schilling had to say on the subject in his open letter to ICANN:
I am writing to protest your policies and your perception of “Bad Faith” in regard to the holding of domain names. I feel your addition of peoples names, geographical areas and tradenames is oppressive to existing domain holders and smacks of “internet micro-management”. You are quickly moving down a path of where domain holders rights to their registered names are constantly called into question. This creates uncertainty in the name space, stymies capitalism, limits growth potential on the web and will inevitably lead to a backlash. The real reason for your tough stance is incredibly transparent and shallow. You are selling hope to the millions of people who failed to register their domain name of choice. Your are offering these people a soft shoulder to cry on, a chance to re-write history and some teeth to take existing name-holders rights away. The reprocusions of your arbitrators actions are far reaching. You are attempting to legislate the internet’s future growth. Domain names “are the Internet” and I feel your liase-fair attitude and your arbitrators liberal interpretation of “Bad Faith” is doing ireperable harm to the name space. Your actions show incredible lack of judgement and bad faith in of themselves. The internet was created in America at the American tax payers expense. Your arbitrators actions could not run more counter to the American ideals of capitalism and oportunity for all. Frank Schilling

]]>