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

[mrscoach]

I wasn't meaning in a lawful sense, either. I consider domain squatting wrong. Yes, that means I don't feel Nate is doing that. They had more than enough time to claim the obvious name, before their announcement.

Nate, I applaud you for trying to help out a clueless company and offering them the domain. The fact that it currently directs to your blog? Funny.

[Xanthe]

Kudos for snapping up the name and I hope you do cash in on it. If TPTB at B&N were so lax as to not buy the domains when they were creating their new product, it's their loss and their lesson learned.

[TallMomof2]

My DH had a domain registered for several years while we were working out how to sell online. Someone came along (IIRC, it was a lawyer from Discovery or the History channel) and offered $7K to purchase it. It was a no brainer to accept the offer. I just checked and it's for sale for $1.5K. We were not domain squatters anymore than Nate is.

TallMomOf2: Buying a domain before it's trademarked, or buying a domain that contains a trademark but is intended for use in a different industry, is one thing. Buying a domain when you know that it contains a trademark is an altogether different issue.

Now I didn't mean to attribute intent to Nate's actions here. When I used the term domain squatting it was a reference to the purchase of the domain specifically because it was a trademark of B&N. I did not use that term because I thought there was an attempt to profit from it.

It is also worth noting that the relevant (American) law defines cybersquatting in terms that are much broader than profiting from the ownership of a domain name. It uses terms like "consumer fraud", "public confusion", "impairs electronic commerce", deprivation of substantial "revenues and consumer good will." You will find the bill here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...106s1255is.pdf

Again, I'm not suggesting that Nate is trying to do any of this stuff. I am pointing out that registering a domain name containing a trademark is playing with fire. It was also totally unnecessary in this case. Nate could have pointed out that the domain was unregistered, and pointed to appropriate online records as evidence. Registering a domain the having it point at your own website is just giving lawyers ammunition.

On top of that, it is not our place to dictate what is good or bad business practice in such matters. Sure, we're free to comment on it. (I don't agree with Nate's argument, but he certainly had the right to make it.) On the other hand, we don't have the right to snap up the domain for ourselves just because we feel entitled to it if the trademark owner didn't snatch it first. There is this thing called trademark dilution after all.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

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

Seriously?

What you did is domain squatting, plain and simple - somebody announced a service, you go and snatch the domain because of that, no other reason. Whether you intend to obtain monetary compensation for that or not, is a different matter.