B&N launch nook snaps but don't seem to understand the Internet.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your use of the domain is commercial - it's directing traffic to your site. I strongly suspect that B&N would have a strong case for trademark infringement if you were to keep the domain. Since you've offered it to them, however, the situation probably won't arise.

Nope. You're misusing the term. I'm not buying or selling any good or service, so my holding onto the domain could not in any way be described as a use in commerce.

Also, my use is not anywhere close to what is covered by the trademark:

Downloadable electronic and digital publications in the nature of fiction and non-fiction books, comic books, illustrated books, graphic novels, picture books, children's books, magazines, newspapers, journals, periodicals, manuals and guidebooks on a variety of topics.

Yeah, the closest I come to that is in talking about it; I am not a dealer in the content myself.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your use of the domain is commercial - it's directing traffic to your site. I strongly suspect that B&N would have a strong case for trademark infringement if you were to keep the domain. Since you've offered it to them, however, the situation probably won't arise.

I suspect they just don't care anymore.
Once they sell off Nook Media (a deal might even be in place) and it gets renamed it'll be somebody else's problem.

[SleepyBob]

The real failure of B&N is that this is the first I've heard of Nook Snaps. And I'm even a customer.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Whoa there.

1) This isn't domain squatting. That's when someone buys up as many relevant domains as they can think of, doesn't use them, and charges an inflated price for them.

It is. The name has nothing to do with the blog it is now linked to, and the only reason the domain was snatched is because BN announced nooksnaps. If it walks like a duck...

[tubemonkey]

Sure hope no one grabs Monkey Snaps

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure hope no one grabs Monkey Snaps

I thought you'd be more worried about someone grabbing your banana schnapps!

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

I thought you'd be more worried about someone grabbing your banana schnapps!

[Kurt]

Please stop
Nate is just showing the complete idiocy of those that should know better

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your use of the domain is commercial - it's directing traffic to your site. I strongly suspect that B&N would have a strong case for trademark infringement if you were to keep the domain. Since you've offered it to them, however, the situation probably won't arise.

[badgerboy]

If it was a photographic gallery ('snaps') of dark and gloomy corners or secluded places ('nooks'), and also had a link to the blog, what then?

[murraypaul]

If I were B&N, and someone registered a relevant domain name, then contacted me to ask if I wanted to buy it, I would certainly view them as a domain name squatter.

[mrscoach]

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with what Nate did. If I remember correctly, B&N had the name for a year before announcing it, so they really SHOULD have registered the domain name, too. He has offered it to them. This isn't like cases where people think up all sorts of possible future name combinations a company might use and register them ( ex. bananacokedotcom), hoping to cash in someday.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with what Nate did.

Nobody's saying it's "wrong", as in unlawful, just that it is domain squattering.

Originally Posted by mrscoach

He has offered it to them. This isn't like cases where people think up all sorts of possible future name combinations a company might use and register them ( ex. bananacokedotcom), hoping to cash in someday.

He has not indicated what he's asking in return, so we can't make the claim that he's not hoping to cash in.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by afv011

He has not indicated what he's asking in return, so we can't make the claim that he's not hoping to cash in.

Y'all also have no evidence to attack me with the claim that I am hoping to cash in, but I suppose that detail does not matter to you.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Y'all also have no evidence to attack me with the claim that I am hoping to cash in, but I suppose that detail does not matter to you.

I did not say that you're hoping to cash in. As you have not come forward with your plans, all I said is that we can't rule it out. But the fact that you're keeping mum about your plans is telling.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by afv011

I did not say that you're hoping to cash in. As you have not come forward with your plans, all I said is that we can't rule it out. But the fact that you're keeping mum about your plans is telling.

It is only telling because you started with the worst assumption rather than with the fact that you have no data. And then you proceeded from the assumption to use the further lack of data to justify your assumption.

Maybe I don't feel the need to share info with someone who has already attacked me. Have you considered that possibility?