PocketBook sues for PocketBook.com domain name

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Domain names are finite resource and should be distributed basing on merit. A large company can produce more social benefits from a domain name than a small one.

IPs are finite. Domain Names are no different to Product and Company names. They are not actually finite. Which is why we have brand names like Kleenex, Eveready and Sellotape etc that are made up, because a made up name can be unique and protected as a trademark.

[binaryhermit]

Actually, last I saw, there was a limit on the number of characters in a domain, something like 56.

That said, you can use 0-9, a-z, and hyphens, so 37 characters.
37^56 is a ridiculous number. around 6.6 times 10^86.

EDIT: So, yes, finite, but with enough supply to be essentially infinite.

EDIT2: Apparently it's 63 not counting the TLD, but there's complicated rules regarding hyphens.

There apparently currently are 1584 TLDs, so the number of possible domains currently exceeds 1584*36^63 which is about 1.77*10^101. The high end of the estimate of the number of atoms in the observable universe is 10^82, so you could give every atom in the universe something along the lines of 10^19 domain names. So, technically finite, but yeah, infinite enough.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

Actually, last I saw, there was a limit on the number of characters in a domain, something like 56.

That said, you can use 0-9, a-z, and hyphens, so 37 characters.
37^56 is a ridiculous number. around 6.6 times 10^86.

EDIT: So, yes, finite, but with enough supply to be essentially infinite.

EDIT2: Apparently it's 63 not counting the TLD, but there's complicated rules regarding hyphens.

There apparently currently are 1584 TLDs, so the number of possible domains currently exceeds 1584*36^63 which is about 1.77*10^101. The high end of the estimate of the number of atoms in the observable universe is 10^82, so you could give every atom in the universe something along the lines of 10^19 domain names. So, technically finite, but yeah, infinite enough.

The question is how many companies want a domain name that looks like someone was blindfolded and hitting the keyboard with a pool noodle? You really want fiopasdgfjuojgvfo-ieuds as your domain name?

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by DNSB

You really want fiopasdgfjuojgvfo-ieuds as your domain name?

If you do, you'll have to ask me VERY nicely, and make the sale worth my while.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

If you do, you'll have to ask me VERY nicely, and make the sale worth my while.

Or you can appeal to ICANN, who controls and sets the rules for domain names. There is no reason they can't set rules to stop scam artists.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Domain names are finite resource and should be distributed basing on merit. A large company can produce more social benefits from a domain name than a small one.

"Merit" determined by whom?

I had to deal with something similar to this--B&N put on its cranky pants, due to my business name. (So too did Apple; for a while, they refused to publish anything in iBooks, because my company name has "nook" as letters in the title. Jackassery of the first water.)

So, if B&N decides, now, years later, to revive their devices, etc., I should have to give up my company name? My established business identity, because they'll produce "more social benefits" by doing...what, exactly? I had my biz, before their first device. Would I have named my business that, if I'd known then that they would call their devices Nooks? Not on your life. I must answer IDK how many wrong numbers per year, for people that think we're a B&N store or god-knows-what.

One of the biggest causes of strife in this world is that people can't agree on what constitues "merit" or "social benefits." I'll be goddamned before I'll let some Johnny-come-lately of any size just TAKE my business name away from me. I've worked very bloody hard to build this little biz, over more than a decade, and B&N or any other company has no goddamned "right" to take it from me--even if they're the equivalent of Little Sisters of the Poor. (Which they obviously are not.)

That's social INjustice and it most certainly isn't meritorious.

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Hitch

"Merit" determined by whom?

I had to deal with something similar to this--B&N put on its cranky pants, due to my business name. (So too did Apple; for a while, they refused to publish anything in iBooks, because my company name has "nook" as letters in the title. Jackassery of the first water.)

So, if B&N decides, now, years later, to revive their devices, etc., I should have to give up my company name? My established business identity, because they'll produce "more social benefits" by doing...what, exactly? I had my biz, before their first device. Would I have named my business that, if I'd known then that they would call their devices Nooks? Not on your life. I must answer IDK how many wrong numbers per year, for people that think we're a B&N store or god-knows-what.

One of the biggest causes of strife in this world is that people can't agree on what constitues "merit" or "social benefits." I'll be goddamned before I'll let some Johnny-come-lately of any size just TAKE my business name away from me. I've worked very bloody hard to build this little biz, over more than a decade, and B&N or any other company has no goddamned "right" to take it from me--even if they're the equivalent of Little Sisters of the Poor. (Which they obviously are not.)

That's social INjustice and it most certainly isn't meritorious.

Hitch

There are two very different things that are being argued. One thing the the idea that if Ben.and.Jerrys.com has already been claimed by a small bicycle shop named Ben and Jerry's bikes, then the big ice cream chain Ben and Jerry's can't simply claim it from them. This is a bit of a straw man since no one was ever arguing that they should. If the Ice Cream chain want to buy the domain, then fine. That's legit.

The other thing is that domain trolls shouldn't be allowed to claim a bunch of names as a matter of pure speculation. That's what I argue. It seems reasonable to me and I think that icann should be able to pull their domain claim in this case. Even in the days of the US giving people the right to claim land out west, there was a requirement that you actually had to work the land.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The other thing is that domain trolls shouldn't be allowed to claim a bunch of names as a matter of pure speculation. That's what I argue. It seems reasonable to me and I think that icann should be able to pull their domain claim in this case. Even in the days of the US giving people the right to claim land out west, there was a requirement that you actually had to work the land.

That doesn't seem to be the case here. Personally I would like PocketBook to obtain the pocketbook.com domain (by buying it), but it doesn't appear the name is currently owned by domain troll. They're using "pocketbook" in the sense of "wallet" and they offer financial services. Their Pocketbook site offers a financial calculator with the intent, I'm sure, of getting you to use their financial services. I think my brother used this site once, a few years back.

Here's a link to the UDRP decision in case you (or anyone) is interested. The Panel found that PocketBook met one of the three requirements in their dispute, but not the other two.

https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1857174.htm

By the way, I agree with you about domain trolls. I feel the same about them as I do about patent trolls.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

I agree. I was surprised to see trolls brought up because this thread, and especially the trigger for it, are not about trolls at all. I have more sympathy for the current owners of pocketbook dotcom than I do for Mike Rowe Soft, which DOES seem like trolling to me.

[binaryhermit]

To be fair, the guy who registered mikerowesoft.com is named Mike Rowe (no, he's not *that* Mike Rowe)

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

To be fair, the guy who registered mikerowesoft.com is named Mike Rowe (no, he's not *that* Mike Rowe)

Yes, but I still think that trolling was his intent, albeit more in a student prank kind of spirit than a "rip off the megacorp" way.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

If you do, you'll have to ask me VERY nicely, and make the sale worth my while.

And that is the point.
It's one thing when somebody has a legitimate reason and use for the name (do they sell ladies clutches?) vs site squatting trolls, who pick up generic names and don't use them until the can sell them for big bucks to somebody who does.

For example, if they were fighting with Simon and Shuster (owners of Pocket Books) it would be open-and-shut. S&S has a valid trademark and would be exploiting it. That they *don't own the site and instead go by the corporate name instead of the brand tells us the ask is more than its worth. More, the reasonable variants (pocket-book, pocket_book, etc) are probably being used properly.

Domain names are more like trademarks: they *must* be exploited constantly at peril of loss.

It's why Disney owns "Captain Marvel" while Warner only owns the original character of the same name: the creators stopped using it and others appropriated it. Marvel Comics was only the third and it took them something like 8 charscters before they found one that's stuck. For now.

And like trademarks, customer confusion is something courts consider.
There is precedent for even similar but not identical marks to be "confiscated".

Right now it seems to be in use as a redirect by a mortgage outfit.
Makes it iffy both ways.

I wouldn't dismiss this suit out of hand just yet.
Let them fight it out.
Courts exist for a reason.

[Uncle Robin]

You really want fiopasdgfjuojgvfo-ieuds as your domain name?

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

If you do, you'll have to ask me VERY nicely, and make the sale worth my while.

I'm quite surprised how many posters have taken my (I thought) obviously flippant comment in deadly earnest.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

I'm quite surprised how many posters have taken my (I thought) obviously flippant comment in deadly earnest.

Think of it as a reminder that site squatting is very real and very profitable.


Tech companies in particular keep future product names secret until they can secure the domain name and all relevant versions, including typo-variants.

It is not unheard of a squatter using the domain on a product to attack the company behind it. Grabbing domain names early saves money in the long haul and somebody might end up using "fiopasdgfjuojgvfo-ieuds" as the brand name for elbonian galoshes. Lots of money at risk.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

By the way, I agree with you about domain trolls. I feel the same about them as I do about patent trolls.

Who decides that? Who decides who is a troll and who isn't? If someone buys 10 domain names, are they a "domain name troll"? I have several, for websites, businesses, etc., that I considered, here or there. One of them, for whatever reason, is now worth a LOT more than it was when I bought it. Does that make me a "domain name troll"? I'm the one that spent the money, created the name at the time, paid for it all these years. If I resell it now, am I under some moral social obligation to donate the "profit" to charity? So that, god forbid, I'm not considered a TROLL?

Does "only" 10 mean that I'm not a domain name troll? What about 100? What about 1,000?

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a male business colleague, in the mid-80's--at the time, an older (to me) gentleman, in his mid-50's, who was talking about some woman he was dating and he referred to her as "that sort of woman." (He was talking about sexual activity.)

I asked him, "how many men makes THAT sort of woman? 2? 5? 7? Is seven the magic slut number?"

So...how many domains, exactly, makes a person or business or entity a troll?

If Fred buys older cars, stacks them in his garage, and waits for them to become collectibles, is he a used-car troll?

Why is the buying and selling of domains any different from doing so with any other commodity?

Hitch