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

[pdurrant]

B&N launched a new service, nook snaps, recently.

But they haven't registered nooksnaps.com.

Whoops.

So a blogger is basically trying to justify being a domain squatter. How sweet.

[charmian]

B&N is confusing these days. Not only this, but I hear that they took the link to their PC/Mac apps down on their homepage, and Nook HD+ is now going on sale for $150ish (usual $269) at Walmart and Target. You'd think they'd try having this kind of sale in their own store to get people in there, instead of just giving other stores the foot traffic.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by charmian

B&N is confusing these days. Not only this, but I hear that they took the link to their PC/Mac apps down on their homepage, and Nook HD+ is now going on sale for $150ish (usual $269) at Walmart and Target. You'd think they'd try having this kind of sale in their own store to get people in there, instead of just giving other stores the foot traffic.

B&N members have been receiving coupons to buy the HD+ in the store (or online) for those prices. I bought the HD+ with 32GB for $165 at my local B&N 2 weeks ago. The HD+ with 16GB was $145 with the coupon.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

So a blogger is basically trying to justify being a domain squatter. How sweet.

Since he has offered the domains to B&N (at cost price, as far as I know), I don't see how that applies.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by charmian

B&N is confusing these days. Not only this, but I hear that they took the link to their PC/Mac apps down on their homepage, and Nook HD+ is now going on sale for $150ish (usual $269) at Walmart and Target. You'd think they'd try having this kind of sale in their own store to get people in there, instead of just giving other stores the foot traffic.

Those reports of the sales were (so far as I know) bogus. The sales didn't actually start until today - not in my local stores, anyway.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

So a blogger is basically trying to justify being a domain squatter. How sweet.

If I were simply out to be a domain squatter do you really think I would set myself up to be sneered at by people like you?

No. I would keep everything a secret, and not reveal any connection to the registered domains. And that's how you know that my main interest was in the news value.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If I were simply out to be a domain squatter do you really think I would set myself up to be sneered at by people like you?

No. I would keep everything a secret, and not reveal any connection to the registered domains. And that's how you know that my main interest was in the news value.

Why would you need to buy the domain if your only interest is news value?

Have you offered it to B&N for the same price you paid for it, as suggested by pdurrant?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Why would you need to buy the domain if your only interest is news value?

Have you offered it to B&N for the same price you paid for it, as suggested by pdurrant?

Because www.nooksnaps.com now points to my blog, and I find that funny. It also emphasizes the story, IMO. And if B&N doesn't want it then I'm sure I can find another use for it.

My offer to B&N did not have a price tag attached. I merely asked if they wanted the domain. They have not yet responded.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If I were simply out to be a domain squatter do you really think I would set myself up to be sneered at by people like you?

It looks like you set yourself up to be sneered at.

I'm not sure if it fits the technical definition of domain squatting, but you are using a company's brand to divert traffic to your blog. It may be an unintended side-effect of how you went about things, but you didn't have to direct the domain to your blog. You didn't even have to register the domain, since registry records (accessible to the public via whois) could be used to verify the story after the fact.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It looks like you set yourself up to be sneered at.

I'm not sure if it fits the technical definition of domain squatting, but you are using a company's brand to divert traffic to your blog. It may be an unintended side-effect of how you went about things, but you didn't have to direct the domain to your blog. You didn't even have to register the domain, since registry records (accessible to the public via whois) could be used to verify the story after the fact.

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.
2) Anyone can buy and use any domain they please. That's the great freedom of the internet.
3) Nook is an English word. B&N use it, they don't own it. Having a domain with nook in the name does not actually imply that the site is related to B&N.
4) I am now hungry for ginger snaps. B&N, why do you always try to pick such cutesy names? They don't have anything to do with books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

3) Nook is an English word. B&N use it, they don't own it. Having a domain with nook in the name does not actually imply that the site is related to B&N.

B&N do "own" the word in its association with ebooks. It's a trademark, and using it for a purpose that is connected with ebooks without the permission of B&N may very well constitute trademark infringement. Amazon go after anyone who has a domain name with the word "Kindle" in it with a very big stick (that's why the site formerly known as www.kindleboards.com is now simply www.kboards.com, for example). I suspect that Nate will be hearing from B&N's lawyers very shortly.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

B&N do "own" the word in its association with ebooks. It's a trademark, and using it for a purpose that is connected with ebooks without the permission of B&N may very well constitute trademark infringement. Amazon go after anyone who has a domain name with the word "Kindle" in it with a very big stick (that's why the site formerly known as www.kindleboards.com is now simply www.kboards.com, for example). I suspect that Nate will be hearing from B&N's lawyers very shortly.

Maybe not. The thing about Amazon is that they can use their affiliate program as a very effective stick. That's why a lot of Kindle related blogs and sites gave up their names. Amazon does have scary lawyers and money but that's not the same thing as a trademark infringement claim.

But that affiliate program is just about Amazon's only stick. They don't have a strong trademark argument against sites like Kindle Boards. They can't validly claim trademark infringement without also arguing consumer confusion, a commercial use of the term, etc. Admittedly, few trademark lawyers bother with evidence any more, but that doesn't mean it's okay.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

B&N do "own" the word in its association with ebooks. It's a trademark, and using it for a purpose that is connected with ebooks without the permission of B&N may very well constitute trademark infringement. Amazon go after anyone who has a domain name with the word "Kindle" in it with a very big stick (that's why the site formerly known as www.kindleboards.com is now simply www.kboards.com, for example). I suspect that Nate will be hearing from B&N's lawyers very shortly.

Somebody should tell Dr. Seuss...

But a Nook can't read and a Nook can't cook, so what good to a Nook is a hook cook book?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Maybe not. The thing about Amazon is that they can use their affiliate program as a very effective stick. That's why a lot of Kindle related blogs and sites gave up their names. Amazon does have scary lawyers and money but that's not the same thing as a trademark infringement claim.

But that affiliate program is just about Amazon's only stick. They don't have a strong trademark argument against sites like Kindle Boards. They can't validly claim trademark infringement without also arguing consumer confusion, a commercial use of the term, etc. Admittedly, few trademark lawyers bother with evidence any more, but that doesn't mean it's okay.

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.