This is what happens when you create a popular web site on something other than .com.
You should never start a mainstream web site on a .net domain. Or .org, .biz, .info, etc.
Unless you own the .com of the same name. Especially if the domain name you choose is generic. Unless you don’t care about losing traffic to the .com.
OK, so why the rant?
I just finished reading a UDRP case brought by First Showing, LLC, which owns FirstShowing.net.
FirstShowing.net has quite a following. Compete.com suggests it receives over 200,000 uniques a month.
But it’s a dot net.
So the owner wanted to get FirstShowing.com and filed a UDRP to do so. The .com was acquired by the respondent after FirstShowing.net was launched.
But this case would be very, very hard for First Showing, LLC to win. As a generic term with meaning, someone can rightfully own FirstShowing.com and use it for a similar purpose as FirstShowing.net. There would have to be evidence that First Showing had received some sort of acquired distinctiveness.
Had the domain been something not specifically about movies — such as AlsCoolSite.net — then it might have a claim if the owner of AlsCoolSite.com starts showing movie listings.
In this case, the owner of FirstShowing.net emailed the .com owner about buying the domain. Perhaps unhappy with the price, First Showing LLC filed the UDRP complaint.
The panel denied the complainant’s request, saying the domain wasn’t registered and used in bad faith. The complainant failed to show that it had common law rights in FirstShowing.net at the time the .com was registered. (Even if it had, I would hope the complainant would be required to show common law rights in First Showing, not FirstShowing.net.)
Attorney Brett Lewis represented the respondent.
You should add the garbage hyphen.com as well.
Andrew
A Strange position for you to take as you also work for media.net
@ Michael –
very fair point. I guess I’m willing to accept that some traffic may land on the .com instead. In our case our audience is less likely to get confused, I think.
What about Oversee.net?
First showing owns the 1st two pages of Google search on “first showing,” and it has the twitter handle. So it tried to acrue the dot com. Nice try, but it didn’t work.
What a stupid move. Now the price went up 400%.
Thanks for the advice after the fact. Unfortunately, when starting a site like that about five years ago, domain names are never thought about, nor is “mainstream success.” And years later when one can no longer buy the domain name because its been squatted on for years a company that can’t be contacted, the UDRP is the only way to go.
What “acquired distinctiveness” are you speaking of? How would I ever win this case if they’re supposedly legally allowed to create a similar version of the exact same site with the same domain? Isn’t that the point of the UDRP – to prevent exactly this?
Also, I don’t understand how “AlsCoolSite.com” would have a better chance at winning a case like this. That kind of name is much more generic and disconnected and could easily be used for a multitude of sites, however at this point nothing else can use the domain name firstshowing.com without feeling like a ripoff/similarity of firstshowing.net. It’s the idea of starting a company/domain called MikeRoweSoft when Microsoft already exists. And we all know that is a landmark ICANN case.
I’m replying for the sake of discussion, not to argue with you by any means. I do actually appreciate reading your response and advice on this UDRP case.
Alex –
“that guy” frequently shows up 🙂
I understand that when you start a web site you don’t know what it will turn into. Given your numbers, it seems like you have a success on your hands.
To hit your points:
“because its been squatted on for years a company that can’t be contacted”
The UDRP indicates that the domain owner responded with with a price, correct?
How would I ever win this case if they’re supposedly legally allowed to create a similar version of the exact same site with the same domain?
They can’t copy your site. But “First Showing” to me means movies, plays, etc. So they should be able to create a site that covers the topic. If not, then if I created a site at domainnames.com (or .net or .org) I’d effectively stop everyone else from using their “equivalent” domain.
“Also, I don’t understand how “AlsCoolSite.com” would have a better chance at winning a case like this”
If you create a “brand” it’s different. AlsCoolSite.com could be about anything. If you turn it into a recognizable brand, such that people think “that specific movie listings site” when they see it, then it’s different.
I’ve successfully killed the thread because “that guy” showed up, eh? Keep the discussion coming, I want to hear more!
Alex:
Our sympathies with you but the message here is that if your domain is just a common term (i.e. generic term or phrase or word etc), then you do not have a case under UDRP or TM policy in my opinion.
For example, if you own a hugely popular site on generic domain CarInsurance.net and lose a big porttion of your traffic to CarInsurance.com then you can NOT go after the CarInsurance.com domain. You both have the same right to use the term ‘car insurance’ any way you want related to insurance.
Now if you own a non-generic domain AlexInsurance.net, then you probably have more chance to get AlexInsurance.com from other person if he is misleading visitors with his use and of course if he is not Alex 🙂
Also you can sell apples without APPLE bothering you on apple.net but you will lose domain in UDRP in you are selling computers/ipads etc on apple.net
I hope I made some sense here but this is not a legal opinion.
LOL @berkens
Alex, why not just buy the domain name from the current registrant of FirstShowing.com? We live in a capitalist society where trade happens every day among millions of people and businesses. Just make him an offer. If you can’t afford the price he’s selling it for, well, you can’t afford the domain name. Or, you borrow money or take on equity investors so that you can afford the name.
Alternatively, why not rebrand on a better domain name that is a .com and just redirect the traffic coming from type-ins to FirstShowing.net to the new .com domain name? After a few months, everyone will know the new brand and voila, your business is on a better domain name and you’re not losing traffic from your .net.
ha i almost bought firstshowing.com on tdnam in 2009. i lost 🙁
@ Louise –
Oversee being oversee.net is one of the biggest ironies in the domain industry, wouldn’t you say?
Andrew – That is EXACTLY what we are – a BRAND. We don’t have a trademarked registered because that process is extremely painful, lengthy and expensive as well, and I haven’t found it necessary to complete it yet. However, there is absolutely no way anyone in their right mind can argue that we don’t 100% OWN the “First Showing” and “FirstShowing.net” brand, even without the domain.
I started the site having no clue that it would be a success nor realizing that our name would become an issue. I’m just trying to secure that domain because obviously if you look at our situation, there is NO ONE else that will ever have that domain and use it and because it would be a necessary part of completing our brand.
I thought this was a simple cut and dry case because we ARE that brand, but instead some squatter is going to sit on the domain for years never using it, or trying to mooch of our success. And at the price he was attempting to charge, this was our only option. I’m sad we lost.
Alex….can u share with us what is the asking price?
Alex, would you agree that you are using generic words that describes the service you are providing ?
Also, trademarking is not an extremely painful, lengthy or costly process. You managed to waste more time and money on a frivolous UDRP case already. I’d suggest the reason you didn’t go after a trademark is because you’ve been advised that you may not get a mark because of the generic nature of your name.
You make think of your name as a brand that affords special protection but it is not. According to your panelist it doesn’t even benefit from the common law mark “there is insufficient evidence to prove that the brand had become distinctive at the time the domain was registered”
The first question I’d like answered is how much could you have bought the domain name for before starting down the wrong path ? and are you going after firstshowings.com and .net next too ? Why not just line them all up at once ?
“Unfortunately, when starting a site like that about five years ago, domain names are never thought about, nor is “mainstream success.”
Best quote ever ! roflmao. Domain names are never thought about ? Why start a business if you don’t want to be a success ?
Alex, it sounds like you’re saying you came up with the term “First Showing”. Is this correct?
That can’t be the case since someone had already registered the .com, so you had to register .net.
Adam – I’m sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. The quote you referenced says “at the time the domain was registered” which, at that time, we weren’t that recognizable of a brand. However, in 2011 we definitely are, but considering nothing has been done with the domain and the owner isn’t planning anything but to sit on it and make ad money based off of our keywords, we can’t win the case. No one is ever going to do anything with that domain anymore considering the presence our brand now has with .net, so it’s a sad case of seeing a squatter successfully defending a domain they won’t be doing anything with.
@alex I believe the panelist is referring to the .com and when it was registered since that is the domain in question. He’s saying that “first showing” wasn’t distinct then. It’s his opinion.
You can bark all day at the decision and people in the industry who are much more familiar with the laws and regulations, but it’s not going to get you the domain. The burden of proof was on you and you failed
so again, how much was the domain?
oh one more thing from the guy who has no clue. . . sorry andrew. Alex, If you admit that you weren’t a recognizable brand when the .com was registered by the respondent then you pretty much gave the respondent the win. How could the respondent have acted in bad faith if you weren’t a recognizable brand? Which attorney did you use again on this case ?
@Alex,
Great site – bookmarked.
– TBC
Andrew – Yes, I did come up with that term. Someone already owned the domain .com, but the page was blank and has been for the last 6+ years. Best Buy, Target and General Motors also came up with those trademarked brand names as well, and they’re also words that can be used to described other things besides the brand that they are, but it has become recognized as nothing but – same with us. I understand what you’re saying, but our brand has an extreme amount of recognition at the moment. We’re WELL above 200K uniques per month – that’s about how many we get in a few days.
Alex, what else would you use “first showing” for other than something about performances, movies, etc? It’s a common term to refer to that.
I’m not doubting the success of your web site at all. I’m impressed, and congratulate you.
But it still doesn’t give you rights to the .com.
Adam #21 – We weren’t AS recognizable as we are today, that’s my point, it took years to build up this brand. How he is acting in “bad faith” is raising the price to ridiculous levels knowing who I am, trying to game me to get more money than we even have. At this point he has no other use for it, so trying to hold onto it and create his own “video site” is completely unfair especially when this domain is unquestionable connected with our brand and will be for many years to come. We all other domains except .com. These exact cases are the reason that ICANN and the UDRP was established, to prevent squatters from holding onto brand names that don’t belong from them. And I’m sorry that our success has quadrupled in the last year or two and he’s taking advantage of that. However, like all who hide anonymously behind the internet, we can’t prove that with hard evidence – that’s why we lost.
#22 The Big Cheese – Thank you, glad you like it, we put a lot of hard work into it!
Alex, I’ve gotta say now you have me curious. You said you get 200,000 uniques every few days. So about 2M uniques a month. If I assume a couple pageviews per unique, that 4M page views a month. At a conservative page CPM of $5 that’s $20k a month in revenue.
Just how much did the domain owner ask for this domain name?
@alex I’ll leave the fallacies of your post #23 to andrew but for #24 . Believing that you are now a more recognized brand now does not afford you any more rights to this domain. He registered it before that occurred as the panelists point out .
Pricing a domain to “ridiculous values” is not bad faith. Registering a domain for that sole purpose is, the panelist said this was not the case. You admit that your brand wasn’t recognizable at the time he registered it, thus you are admitting he couldn’t have bought the domain to act in bad faith. The respondent has done nothing wrong, as was pointed out to you by the panelist.
These cases are not why ICANN was established nor the UDRP. The individual is not squatting. Nor is he hiding, since you got a price from him. He has no obligation to be “fair” or price it low or give you the domain. You even approached him to buy it . If you weren’t trying to frame him somehow, by approaching him alone you’ve shown that you recognize he has rights to sell and own the domain. You didn’t like his price , so then you decide it’s unfair that he owns it and wouldn’t want to sell it to you for what you deem to be reasonable. You see no flaw there ?
You didn’t get the domain when it became available, he did. End of the day, he got lucky and now you’re trying to say he’s a squatter ? The guy that owned facebook.com got lucky in the same way. Your site became successful and he’s in the wrong because he holds something you desire ? ugh. There’s so much wrong with your logic Im just going to let you keep piling it on. I’m sure the attorneys on the other side appreciate seeing your viewpoints too.
I still want to know why you are avoiding obvious questions. Why no trademark ? Who was your attorney here ? Are you going to go after the other domains firstshowings.com and firstshowings.net for example ? How much would it have cost you to just bite the bullet here ? $10k ? $20k ? You might as well fess up on that one. I’d bet Andrew can find out with one phone call.
Either way, you are clearly going to keep on believing your side no matter what us with no clue (including the panelist) say , and you’ve demonstrated a great example of entitlement at work.
Adam – I have no reason to answer your condescending and prodding questions, but I will say that yes, I believe there is a huge flaw and I will contend that the panelist who lead the committee was incorrect in their decision, improperly advised, and potentially biased. We belong in Andrew’s article “XX”, not here.
There never was an auction or opportunity to acquire the domain. When it was transferred to the current owner, we never knew it had happened, it was a behind-the-scenes sale. We have a trademark in the works, but up until now didn’t feel one was necessary. The only reason a trademark is now necessary, is to win this domain case.
Adam, you’re not running a major business or a major website nor are you at all in my position owning a website that can’t get a domain because some guy IS squatting on it. There is no question about it, he is a squatter, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you were either. It’s a sleazy activity and it sounds like you care about nothing more than defending squatters and their sleazy activities. Why don’t you start a business and try to buy a domain name then come back here and see how it feels.
Andrew – Obviously according to this panel, no that does not give me the right, but what I’m trying to say is that the way the the current owner is acting is in “bad faith” and their treatment of the domain (or lackthereof for 2 years+) is in bad faith as well. Raising prices to outrageous levels is a bad faith move. How else am I supposed to ever get the .com domain name if he is pricing it at levels above the value of the business? And the worst part is there is no use or no other reason for ANYONE to own this domain, despite what you may claim about the wording. I challenge you to start a site on firstshowing.com and compete with us. It’s not possible and you would immediately get in trouble as soon as our trade mark is approved. So why do we have go through so much trouble to simple acquire a domain? Why does the current owner have to be so greedy and ask for so much money? It’s just sad to see people like this stamping on the legitimate businesses that are operating simply because they acquired a domain name.
Give me any real reason WHY this guy truly deserves the .com besides his acquisition “right” to it 2 years ago from a sale we didn’t even know about. I doubt you can find a legitimate, ethical or necessary reason, because there isn’t one.
Whoops I meant to say Andrew’s article “Two New Cases Show What’s Wrong with UDRP” is the article this case belongs in. Link here:
https://domainnamewire.com/2010/09/24/two-new-cases-show-whats-wrong-with-udrp/
Alex,
Your sense of entitlement is astounding! “Behind the scenes” sale?? LOL. Everyone else in the country would call it a “private sale”, you know, like you selling your used car to some stranger in your city.
Sorry, but you are sorely mistaken about your position in this “dispute”. Let’s be frank — the fact of the matter is that he beat you to the .com and the envy, regret, and frustration of having rolled forward with your successful business on a .net instead are eating you up inside. That’s okay, it’s something anyone here can empathize with. We’ve all probably been in similar situations. But, the fact is, you registered the .net — and only the .net I might add — almost 2 full years after the .com was registered. It matters not that your site has generated more revenue than his in the intervening period — others beat you to it and the current owner is the rightful owner of the .com domain name. He could sell it privately to someone else instead of you and THEY would be the rightful owner of the .com domain name too. Hell, that buyer could be me (I might buy it and start a site about debutantes and their “first showing” to society). Or, the buyer could be you! All either one of us has to do is pay him his asking price (or politely negotiated down from there at bit) and he’d happily transfer the .com domain to either one of us in exchange for the cash. Heck, he might be willing to lease it to you for 10 years. Or, he might allow you to pay it out over time and be the owner at the end of 5 years or something like that. If you really want the .com that badly, then think positively and creatively about how the .com could be yours by simply buying it from its rightful owner! Nothing you’ve gone on about here justifies your right to the .com without payment in full to the current owner. Forget your own opinion of this situation and study the reality: the three decision-making rules of UDRP (they are in the panelists’ ruling document). You did not then and you do not now have a leg to stand on in regard to any of the three rules.
Second, you registered the .us yesterday. Why not just be happy with the .us since you got beat on the .com? Or, are you making the claim that firstshowing.ws, firstshowing.so, firstshowing.de, etc. are all rightfully yours because they contain a generic keyword phrase that you happen to have put a lot of time and energy against? What makes you feel entitled to such a claim on all those domain names regardless of extension? Or, are you saying that you feel entitled to one particular extension — .com — when you don’t feel entitled to all the others? Where is the legal basis for only claiming a .com extension as rightfully yours but not a .ws, .no, .tv, or other extension with the same generic keyword phrase?
By the way, you forgot to register the .biz yesterday — it is still available for you to register and claim as your own — just like Mr. Dot Com did six years ago, long before you even registered the .net.
Short of paying the man for what he owns so that it can then be yours, I still recommend just rebranding to a different .com name. It’s easy to do once you have a .com you’re happy with. Just rebrand and redirect your .net traffic to it. Also, tell Google and Bing webmaster accounts that you’ve done the redirect and that you want them to show the new .com name wherever you rank in their engines with the current .net. It can be done!
My apologies — you bought the .us today, not yesterday.
Appreciate the tips Logan, really helpful and thoughtful. No seriously, actually some reasoned advice. However, like I said to Adam, you’re not in my shoes, you have no clue what it’s like to be here. Yes, it was registered before, but you know what, nothing has become of it. It’s just sitting there – and has been for six years. Up until two weeks ago, there were nothing but porn ads on the site for 5 years. How would you want the .com of your domain, the one that most people mix up and say “oh FirstShowing.com”. We didn’t plan on being a success, but now that we’re here, it’s time to think about developing our brand further.
Sure, maybe he should make some profit. But a reasonable profit is what I’m looking for, not the insane prices he is asking. Domain sales have become a brutal world where scumbags and sleazy people can manipulate the system and take advantage of major businesses. We were just trying our hardest in completing the brand that the website has become. We may not have been first to the domain, but we definitely have made something of it and I think if anything, we deserve the .com. Yea you may think that’s entitlement, but that’s because you’re not the owner and not sitting here. If you were in my shoes, you’d feel the exact same way.
Also – what makes “payment in full”? I’ll pay exactly what he paid to win it in the 2008/9 auction. Or I’ll pay the $15 a year he pays to keep it registered. That, to me, is payment in full, as charging anymore is taking advantage of our identity for his gain, which I believe is illegal.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, honestly, domains aren’t really of my concern. I’m just a businessman trying to be concerned with my business and my website and that means attempting to get the domain. We tried to work with him, but he went too high on the prices. I didn’t think there was another option that was reasonable, so I made a case for UDRP. Obviously we didn’t have enough hard evidence and panel decided that brand identity had nothing to do with it and squatters would rule, so they made their choice. Now I’m stuck here without a .com and he’s stuck with a .com that he can’t sell to anyone but me. Please, go ahead and buy it and start a wonderful user community. I would love to see the “debutantes and their ‘first showing’ to society” as a counterpart to FirstShowing.net, we’d work great off of each other, maybe even partner on cross-promotions. But if you’re not going to do that, then why don’t you just let us takeover the domain – for a reasonable and fair “full” price. That’s what we want, but I do appreciate the advice, I will take it to heart.
Alex,
You say that Adam isn’t in your shoes. I’d argue that all of us have been in shoes similar to you.
Let’s just take this site for example. I started it in 2005. At the time I searched and searched for the right name to use. Some of the better names, such as domainnews.com and domainnamenews.com, were taken.
If a .net for one of those names was available, I could have used it. But I would have never come back and claimed the owners of domainnews.com or domainnamenews.com should give me the domain name.
My choice was either to buy the .com or go with a different .com. I chose a different .com.
I’ve started many other businesses and web sites. I was often faced with the same question. The .net was often available, but not the .com. Each time I knew I had an ethical but important business decision to make: pay the owner of the .com for the name, chose the .net with its encumbrances, or choose a completely different domain name.
Here’s a vacant commercial lot I own, Alex.
Since I’m not “using” it for anything while you’ve got some great plans for a new building for your business you want to build on it, I guess you’re entitled to that, too.
Sheesh.
You know I was going back and forth at least understanding where you were coming from Alex. But you lost the arguement with “deserve” and I will pay $15. Sorry but you are clueless when it comes to intellectual property IMO. Why are you not saying what you offered for the domain ? $15 ?
I see it this way: dude with no clue builds his site on .net because .com is taken. Then he is too cheap to pay for the .com and tries to steal it instead. Then he comes here and insults every domainer as a “squatter”. He is flawed and wrong in so many ways I wouldn;t even know where to start. So I say NANA NA NA NA NA
“Raising prices to outrageous levels is a bad faith move.”
If I believe my domain is worth a million dollars and won’t sell for $100,000, I might be stupid but not acting in bad faith.
What about in cases where on the .net and the .com run the same sort of business, how should get the domains ?
Domain can be registered on first come first served basis, you were too late.
“Adam, you’re not running a major business or a major website nor are you at all in my position owning a website that can’t get a domain because some guy IS squatting on it. There is no question about it, he is a squatter, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you were either. It’s a sleazy activity and it sounds like you care about nothing more than defending squatters and their sleazy activities. Why don’t you start a business and try to buy a domain name then come back here and see how it feels.”
I’m sorry have we met before some time ? Do you know Logan? To assume neither of us has any experience or have been in those shoes raises the bar on condescending. As Andrew points out, many here including myself have experience in dealing with many facets of this business and it’s issues from first hand experience
It’s funny that you act as if you know what I’ve been through or what my experience level is on matters like this . . .and yet you say I’ve got no clue? You stepped in to this blog as “that guy” and you wanted to “hear more”, but I guess that’s only if it’s in agreement with your agenda.
The truth is really starting to shine in your posts . . . I really hope you keep responding
” Domain sales have become a brutal world where scumbags and sleazy people can manipulate the system and take advantage of major businesses.”
You’re going to get plenty of love. Where’s the Castellos ?
@Alex – “If you were in my shoes, you’d feel the exact same way.” No, I’m more reasonable and humble than you.
And Steve M. gave the perfect analogy that proves your fallacious thinking. It matters not what the .com owner does with the domain name — park it, build a site on it, point it to some other site, or don’t even make it resolve to a site — so long as he doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. He is not infringing on your rights because you have none, period. But, being unreasonable and feeling entitled (not unlike quite a few of your fellow Californians, unfortunately for your state’s finances), you thought you’d attempt a reverse name hijacking (an overt act of entitlement if there ever was one). And, when the reasonable panelist ruled, you lost. How do you think that the owner of the vacant lot that you tried to use government or legal force to take from him but lost is going to treat you now when you approach him with the idea of selling his vacant lot to you? Would you be surprised if he says to your face, “F*ck you, man!” Now if you want to buy the .com you’re going to have to go hat in hand and be kissing his ass. And, he’s going to raise his price for all the hassle you’ve put him through so selfishly. If you were in his shoes, you’d feel the exact same way.
“Adam, you’re not running a major business or a major website…”
Adam,
Didn’t you just pay $500,000.00 for Logo.com, or is that another guy?
“First Showing” Real estate term – brokers open house.
If firstshowing.net is such a hugely successful company, why do they hide behind anonymous WHOIS?
here’s a path you might want to follow Alex
https://domainnamewire.com/2011/01/30/after-losing-udrp-new-york-times-buys-dealbook-com-from-frank-schilling/
Alex – I’m VERY happy that your blatant attempt at a reverse hijack has failed! You seem to think that you ‘deserve’ that .com? You sound like a complete idiot!
<>
What a ridiculous sense of entitlement! And you’re also an idiot for building a brand on a .net, knowing the entire time that you did not own the .com!
Did your simple mind even think about buying it BEFORE you built up your site? Or here’s a new concept – maybe REBRAND before it was too late?!
Your logic is VERY FLAWED Alex! I’ll pay you $10 to come over here and KISS MY ASS! What?! That’s not enough for you? How much would it take? $1,000? $10,000? No way – that’s way too much! OK – I’ll let you KISS MY ASS for $15 – not a dime more! There’s no way that your ass kissing is worth a dime more than that! I’d never pay you $10,000 to come KISS MY ASS!
@Alex – Kudos at least for coming on here to debate.
However, as a lawyer who has done a lot of domain name disputes, I assume that your views are your own and that they don’t reflect the legal advice you received from a large and reputable law firm. Because you would have been advised you that unless you had some reason to show that the registrant knew about you when they registered the domain; then (if they filed a response) there was very little (basically zero) chance of showing that they registered in bad faith.
So your hopes would be pinned on getting someone like Andrew Christie as a single panellist in a no response case – where the panellist could cook up some of their Octogen alchemy!
Your best bet of doing that was to file just before Christmas – since the UDRP timetable takes no account of the holiday season and would have required the registrant to read and respond to your (at best) highly speculative complaint at the time of year that is least convenient. By filing on 6 January your goose was pretty much cooked. That was a big trick missed IMHO.
The outcome of this case was totally correct in my view – not even a close call. The fact that the panellist you chose agreed with the decision should help you understand that.
A bit of free (not legal) advice, if your business has any prospect of expanding overseas, then I would suggest that you should long ago have been advised by your IP lawyer to register any available popular country code domain extensions. I’d look at co.uk and com.au for a start. You should have been advised to do that before raising the red flag with a UDRP. There are a lot of scumbags out there after all… 🙂
Alex,
After seeing the comments from the big cheese I decided to check out your site. Alas I just couldn’t stop myself from always typing in .com instead. Old habits die hard huh? If you ever do manage to get the domain though, I’d love to try again.
Btw, have you considered trying to claim Arkansas? I know a few million people got there before you, but they don’t seem to be doing a whole lot with it.
RH – I’m not saying what I was offered because that information riles all of you guys up and it seems to me, based on these comments, that some of you only care about getting that info so you can laugh in my face more. Have fun.
#39 – One of the only reasonable statements made here. Yes, we’re late and missed it obviously, but I don’t think it’s right of the current owner to charge way more than the domain is worth just because I’m the owner of a similar, competing domain. Maybe that’s just my ethical opinion on the matter and not the IP law, but it’s what I believe in as the owner of this business.
Hi,
I noticed you are not using this downtown lot. Me and my wife that just had 3 kids (one has down syndrome) are opening a cake shop and we thought, well, since you aren’t using the lot that we can take it off your hands for a reasonable price? Something like $500, and we can pay ren’t, but really you should be happy we are willing to take this off your hands for you.
Good day,
Alex Coont
“I don’t think it’s right of the current owner to charge way more than the domain is worth just because I’m the owner of a similar, competing domain.”
Well, what is the .com domain worth to you then? If you owned it, how much would you be willing to let it go for? Figure that out, then offer the buyer that amount. If he balks at your offer price, then you will know that the .com is indeed worth more than what you feel it is worth because clearly the current owner believes that he can just hold on to the .com and sell it to somebody else for a higher price at some time in the future.
How about this idea: hire a professional domain name broker (like one at Sedo.com) to contact the .com owner and negotiate the purchase price on your behalf. The owner of the .com won’t know who the ultimate buyer of the domain name is (it could be anyone here on this blog). If he offers the broker the same asking price as the one he has asked of you, then you know that his price is not just a high price that he is asking you to pay just because you own the .net — he’s asking that “high” price of everyone, not just you the .net owner. Then you’ll know the owner is on the up and up and a straight up guy. It’s just he simply believes that he can bide his time and wait until the right buyer comes along and pays his “high” asking price. It’s no different than what happens day in and day out with raw land throughout this great country of ours. These land owners are not “squatters”; they are just owners waiting to be compelled to sell their land by an attractive enough offer from a prospective buyer. Free Markets 101.
Logan – I understand you’re argument and there’s nothing I can say in opposition to it, but what I think all of you fail to understand is the position of what it’s like to be in my shoes and see this vacant lot trashed and unused for so many years. Considering this is the first time any of you have ever heard of us, I understand that your general argument is that everyone in the world is entitled their right to do with whatever they want with any words (or land) that exist. Yea, sure, but all I’m asking is that you broaden your perspective to understand what it’s like to be in THIS situation without the ability to do anything about a vacant lot next door – that is NOT being used by an enterprising individual.
How would you feel if you worked 5 hard years to become a success and were undermined by some guy who thinks that one day he’ll maybe do something with a domain he randomly acquired but shouldn’t have? I’m not saying I have legal right, as the UDRP proved, but I’m saying it’s about morals and ethics and there is no way what he is doing is ethically correct. I’m sorry you guys can’t see that, but what point do I have arguing with you if all you’re doing is claim I’m wrong and not even consider my perspective.
The only immoral and unethical thing I see here is someone trying to steal perfectly legal domain name abusing UDRP process.
You could not be more wrong in calling this “reverse name hijacking.” That was in no way my intention and I feel, and will feel, that I am the one being treated unfairly and unethically. I am the one that has worked for 5 hard years to make something of a domain I own and I would like to now complete our brand, but without having to pay a fortune to do it. If there was already a website established on the .com, I wouldn’t have even tried to acquire it to begin with, but because he’s just sitting on it and not doing anything with it except selling it for a higher price to someone with a similar name that needs it, that is literally the exact definition of squatting, confirmed by Merriam-Webster.
If my website did not exist, how much would the .com sell for? Why is it wrong of me to believe that is the price I should be paying? I feel it’s wrong, morally and ethically, to take advantage of our success and ask for a much higher price.
And I would not feel the same way if I were in his shoes. I would’ve agreed to the very reasonable offer that was originally made to me, as I have no other use for the domain (he owns hundreds of them) and can recognize, as an ethical human being, that it would be best for this domain to be with this company, especially after making some money on it from that first offer. The only arguments I hear in opposition to this are that he has the right to make something out of this domain as well. Sure, he does, but after six years, nothing has been made of it and now he’s just digging into our pockets. We’ll probably have to spend more money to eventually acquire it, but obviously that happens to the best of everyone, including even the New York Times. And that’s a company I’m fine being compared to.
As always, Frank says it best:
http://www.reapazor.com/2009/09/27/domain-squatters-web-mafia/
(Scroll down to comments)
And so did Matthew: “I guess this whole domain squatting thing feels like Internet Spam, there isn’t a law against it, but it just feels wrong.”
Actually, there are laws against spam.
Alex – I think we’ve pretty clearly told you that we sympathize with you and more than one of us has said that we have indeed been in your shoes with a similar situation. So get that out of your mind. Done.
We are being rational, you are being emotional. That’s the only difference. You are emoting because you are upset and frustrated about two mistakes for which you and only you are responsible: 1) not buying the .com from its owner over four years ago when you started your business, and 2) trying to use the UDRP process to reverse hijack the very same .com domain name four years later. It’s pretty straightforward how to deal with this: stop making excuses, admit your mistakes, and move past all this emoting. Come up with a plan for what you’re going to do to move your business to a .com, either this particular one or perhaps an even better one. Think positively, think in a forward direction, and respect the reality that you are in.
Moreover, respect the man who currently owns this .com. This man is doing nothing unethical or immoral. In fact, he is a business man just like you — he’s making money from the site through CPC text ads. That is a legitimate use of any domain name, per more than one UDRP ruling and many court rulings. Millions of these kinds of sites exist out there on the Web, and some of these people make millions of dollars per year through CPC text ads on good .com domain names — that’s more money than your business makes, I’m sure. These sites may not be to your liking, and you make look down your elitist nose at them condescendingly, sure, but they are a legitimate way to make money online and have been for many years now. I don’t know the man, but I tend to think he didn’t just “randomly acquired but shouldn’t have” this .com domain name. He very likely purchased it after having studied its CPC rates and likely type in volume and noted its generic keyword phrase. Being a bona fide business man, he made an offer, completed a private sale, paid cash via his PayPal account, and accepted transfer of the .com from the previous owner, that other business man who six years ago registered the .com originally by hand when nobody else — including you — had considered doing it before, much less followed through on it.
In short, man up. Think rationally. Think positively. Stop blaming others for your frustrations. Stop judging others for what they freely choose to do with their own personal property. Admit your mistakes and move on. Make your business even more successful by buying the .com domain from the owner or by rebranding to another .com domain that you register by hand or buy from its owner. One year from now, I think you’ll be glad you did.
Besides, look at it this way. You sent a boatload of traffic to his pre-established domain. Since the name is generic, he is within his rights to capitalize on that traffic, which he’s doing.
You essentially gave him a gift by increasing the market value of his domain. And now you want to take back that gift by having him sell at less than current market value. I think there’s a term for that.
“What I think all of you fail to understand is the position of what it’s like to be in my shoes and see this vacant lot trashed and unused for so many years.”
What I think you fail to understand, Alex, is that it’s literally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what the vacant lot is doing! It’s not YOUR lot, after all.
No, it belongs to somebody else. They have full and legitimate title over it, backed by a court decision that reaffirmed their rightful ownership. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero say over what’s done with it, as it doesn’t belong to you.
So you’re free to feel annoyance, anger, jealousy, shame, or any one of a hundred different emotions as you contemplate the “wasted” lot, but you should NEVER feel entitled to it.
“How would you feel if you worked 5 hard years to become a success and were undermined by some guy who thinks that one day he’ll maybe do something with a domain he RANDOMLY acquired but SHOULD’NT HAVE? ”
Do you own a collection of shovels ?
You tried to force the domain to your control when in fact your rights to that domain are as valid as the rights of the people in Libya at the moment.
As for you claiming you ‘came up’ with the first showing term, please find an article from 1932 which i think was a couple days prior to launch of your website.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XIQ1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=-aQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3836,1262349&dq=first-showing&hl=en
I think after all this discussion it still comes back to what Andrew has titled this article – never starts a mainstream website on a .net domain name.
Why didn’t you invest 5 hard working years on a better domain name to begin with? To answer your question on how I would feel if I were you having spent 5 years building a successful website but losing traffic to a better domain I don’t own, I would feel dumb, very dumb.
Alex, you keep stating that you’re a business person with a successful business, but I don’t see any signs of either.
You claim to have registered a dot net, had no idea it would take off (no business plan?) and that you worked 5 years (doing what, building ONE site?) which now “entitles” you to the dot com version of your website.
If I owned the dot com, you’d have to pay dearly for it just for being such a self-righteous prig.
Fair? Maybe not. But it’d be MY decision what amount to sell for, not yours, and I’d made sure you lost your sense of “entitlement” during the sale process.
“Sure, maybe he should make some profit. But a reasonable profit is what I’m looking for, not the insane prices he is asking.”
It’s true we can sue for just about any reason, but only a completely intolerable system like UDRP would allow some johnny-come-lately to steal the property of another because he doesn’t like the price.
You game the system, you get what you deserve. No respect, no rights, no quarter.
“Why don’t you start a business and try to buy a domain name then come back here and see how it feels.”
Here’s the thing Alex. I do feel sorry for you, and I get calls from people in your situation every day.
Let’s take a look at that first step – “start a business”.
When you start a business, you can call it anything in the world. Twenty years ago, who would have imagined that a name like “Google” would end up being a monstrously successful brand.
However, when you pick that name, knowing that the .com domain name was registered by someone else, you took a risk. You could have made up any name, found an unregistered .com name, and gone ahead with your business.
That is a decision you made. It is not a decision that was thrust upon you by anyone else.
It could have turned out that the registrant of firstshowing.com was planning to launch a pornography site for new models, or something that would, in your current situation, be worse for you. You knew that .com domain name was registered, was beyond your control, and could have turned into anything at all.
You had complete control over the situation when you chose to take that risk and go ahead with the .net domain name. To come back later and try to pin responsibility for your own decision on someone else is an understandable subjective reaction. But, objectively, nobody but you is responsible for your decision to proceed with the knowledge that the .com domain was already registered.
The UDRP was not designed to correct those sorts of decisions. It was designed to address the situations where people intentionally and abusively seek to rip off the owners of existing rights. It also wasn’t designed to alter existing law as it relates to the general equitable principle of priority, which since the middle ages has been expressed as a the fundamental maxim of “first in time, first in right”. That general principle, like any general principle, has its limits and complications, but to a first-order analysis, you are bucking against literally hundreds of years of common law based on it.
Love the concept Alex. We’ve been wanting that nice foreclosed unoccupied home down the street, and since the bank is losing money with it being empty, they should take what ‘we feel’ it’s worth, cause it’s perfect for our needs and we’d tidy it up and put it to good use. And since what they are asking is just ‘way too high’ for our liking, at least they’d get something for it now! Love it!! On the way over to the bank now. Care to come with us to justify it to the bank for us??
I have a successful website built on a generic .net domain name. Why didn’t I buy the .com? Because it was taken and was not for sale within my budget at that time. Now that my site dominates the SERPs, do I have a right to take the .com from its owner? No! These are generic domain names, and as such anybody could build a very similar site to mine on the dot com (or dot org for that matter) without infringing on my rights. Alex, you are in the same position as me, however I understood the situation to begin with and am still happy with the consequences (don’t forget that by choosing the dot net you were able to build a successful business for an initial domain cost of around $10). I do agree with one point you made – that due to your success the dot com now has much less value in terms of potential development, as it would be very difficult for someone to compete with you at this stage. However that is something for the current owner to consider, and by no means gives you the right to take his domain name.
Alex, sadly, your feeling have nothing to do with the law or UDRP proceedings.
Also, if I have a vacant lot and you have a vacant lot next to mine and you put a McDonalds on that lot, my lot automatically gains in value. That’s pretty easy to see, is it not?
Lastly, check out the NAF UDRP Rules, it’s clear from how you structure you comments you never even read the rules, or you would not have tried a UDRP.
NAF UDRP Rules :
http://www.adrforum.com/main.aspx?itemID=1561&hideBar=False&navID=356&news=3
Alex,
Your “I’m more deserving of the name because I put a lot of hard work into my site” theory of domain allocation has downsides. Domain allocation by committee only works if you continue to be the most deserving of that domain. As soon as someone more deserving comes along, things go pearshaped for you.
Check out this post for an example of a company getting a trademark on a verb, then using it to muscle competitors…
http://www.webmasterworld.com/printerfriendlyv5.cgi?forum=30&discussion=4252178&serial=4267569
But that’s OK in your world because they were more deserving, right?
Your success on the .net is proof of why the title of this blog post makes no sense. You don’t “need” the .com at all. However, your certainly not “entitled” to it. You can have a Successful money making site on any TLD. Some who sell domain names give one price and it’s sold for that price, other try to find out who is inquiring in order to raise the price accordingly, and maybe that is what is going with you. Did not having the .com hold you back from making a successful site? No, really, your spending time, energy and dollars chasing pennies. I recently read in a sales letter that twitter (dot) org was for sale? See what I’m saying…. All TLD’s can have value, in time one tld will not be that much more important than the other. (imho) yes it may have been better if you were going to “brand” to register all the major tld’s but you built a site without branding in mind when you started. It’s not that big of a deal….or if it is to you then pay for it, if you have not done so yet, then that is your answer of how important it is for you business…..
@Alex,
Our company is starting a site very similar to yours within the next six months and we’re building it on a .Co extension – .com’s are great, but unnecessary.
coMOVIE.co
comovie.co/the big cheese guy sure does spam all the blogs with his nonsense.
@coMOVIE.co
I assume you are a Colombia-based company, right ? Because you do realize that .CO stands for COLOMBIA. After reading this article and participating in these comments, it would be quite foolish make the same- or in fact an even worse- mistake than this guy.
I was going to suggest rebranding to FistShowing.
However, the .net is already taken. No joke.
“comovie.co/the big cheese guy sure does spam all the blogs with his nonsense.”
First showing of EPICFAIL. 🙂
In response to the article title “Never Start a Mainstream Web Site on a .Net Domain Name” I respectfully disagree. I have a friend who Purchased a GEO.net that a major brand owns the .com. They use the .com very much different than the .net ‘geo’ site would. I think this is a situation where the .net or even .org would be golden.
After re-reading all Alex’s comments, my best guess is that Alex is in his early to mid-20s – you know, that age where you think you have the world by the balls and everybody owes you something just because you’re an active player.
But hopefully he’ll soon mature and realize he won’t be handed assets just because he thinks he’s entitled to them.
All,
Alex had multiple opportunities to acquired firstshowing.com for less than the cost of bringing the UDRP case. He choose instead to try to intimidate someone who has the right and intention to develop a digital media site on a generic url into giving it to him. Sounds like a type of extortion to me.
I guess the facts speak for themselves on this and that is why a third party independent panel ruled as it did.
Alex,
Boo hoo. You started a site on a .net and you regret it.
Now you file a UDRP to cover your ignorance.
You even admit that you haven’t filed a TM because it’s too “painful, lengthy and expensive”. Ever hear of legalzoom.com?
You say that the rightful owner of the .com is “trying to mooch of our success”.
firstshowing.net was registered on May 26, 2006.
firstshowing.com was registered on October 14, 2004
You came into his world and now he’s the idiot?
You don’t own these:
1stshowing.com
first-showing.com
firstshowing.biz
firstshowing.mobi
I’m glad you lost the UDRP and I hope many people learn from your ignorance and arrogance.