The CQ "Legal Beat" blog reports that a Rhode Island man has already purchased the domain names and Does he know something we don't?

Perhaps he knows how cheap it is to buy a domain name.
2.9.2009 3:06pm
Back in the very early 1990's, when most companies thought the internet was a passing fad not worth bothering with, there was story in the WSJ about a guy who was registering thousands and thousands of domain names. They were in every possible combination of popular corporate names and/or logos and/or acronyms he could think of: WallStreetJournal, WSJ, Coke, Cocacola, Walmart, etc, etc, etc. Then when each of these entities woke up and realized that they needed to get in, they had to buy their own best domain names from him at hefty prices. Some of them went for six figues, IIRC.

Smart guy. Wish I was that prescient.
2.9.2009 3:18pm
And this, dear readers, is why everyone should go--right now--and buy their name as a domain name if it is still available.
2.9.2009 3:19pm
DNL (mail):
Both domains were registered in November.

The guy is just probably collecting names of women who have never been in his kitchen.
2.9.2009 3:21pm
Gilbert (mail):
This is nothing new, and unless he is going to do something with them he is on thin ice:

Anti-Cybersquatting Legislation overview:
2.9.2009 3:31pm
I wouldn't want to be that guy these days. Cybersquatting is very expensive, and not for the owner of the famous name.
2.9.2009 3:54pm
New World Dan (www):
This guy could be on to something. It might be a longshot, but I'm going to register
2.9.2009 3:57pm
If he knew something we didn't, wouldn't he save a couple bucks and just register the name of the one who's going to be nominated?
2.9.2009 4:53pm
LessinSF (mail):
Gilbert: The legislation you cited applies only to trademarked names.
2.9.2009 5:17pm
BZ (mail):
And if you register anything other than a .com version of a domain name, this company out of Denver will start e-mailing you that they have bought the "much more valuable" .com version of the name and they will "put it up for auction soon." Offering you a chance to buy it for only $199 or so. And then somebody sends you an e-mail which says: oh, by the way, they can reserve the name for a few days and if they don't actually get it, their money is refunded, so it doesn't cost them anything.
2.9.2009 5:49pm
Dave N (mail):
Gilbert: The legislation you cited applies only to trademarked names.
According to Wikipedia, the Act "makes people who register domain names that are either trademarks or individual's names with the sole intent of selling the rights of the domain name to the trademark holder or individual for a profit liable to civil action."

Another website notes:
The Act also prohibits the unauthorized registration of a domain name that is the same as or confusingly similar to the name of another living person, if done with intent to profit from the domain name by selling it for financial gain to such person or a third party. Under this section, which is not part of the Lanham Act, courts can order the forfeiture or cancellation or transfer of the domain name. Monetary damages are not available, but the court may award costs and attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in appropriate cases.
The provisions providing personal protection are found at 15 U.S.C. 1129.
2.9.2009 7:03pm

I hope that was a Cheers reference, Otherwise, its an amazing coincidence.
2.9.2009 7:19pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.