Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)
> Unfortunately, it is doubtful if the original writer of the post to the GA
> read the article as it clearly supports the case that domain names are NOT
It does no such thing. In point of fact, it is definitely another
precedent-setting example of courts finding for domains as PROPERTY... In this
particular case, it's just not the property of the original registrant due to
their "bad faith" intent. After all, the article states:
"Harrods attorneys attempted to argue that they shouldn't be forced to
demonstrate "bad faith" in order to recover the names, but the judge rejected
that argument. Harrods won despite that setback since they were able to prove
bad faith on the part of Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd."
The telling statement: "the judge rejected that argument": Harrod's had to
come up with the evidence to prove their rights had been wilfully violated;
whatever that evidence may have been, it was sufficient under the condition of
"bad faith" to forfeit entitlement of thedomain to the compainant.
Nonetheless, the implied meaning of the "bad faith" stipulation is to inhibit
monopolistic attempts to curtail use of a name(s) for established and
> As with most things legal, it is a murky field, we must be guided by
> precedents and all I have seen indicate domain names are not property.
> Until such time domain names are given the status of property in the
> courts, any arguments in this forum are unproductive.
Darryl, would you mind producing the precedents you are referring to?
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html