Sign in / up

back to article Guess who owns Netflix.news and Netflix.website – clue: definitely not Netflix

Netflix has failed in its attempt to shut down two namesake domain names, in the most peculiar circumstances. The video streaming giant paid $750 to take two domains – Netflix.news and Netflix.website – through the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). If successful, the domains would have been suspended for the duration of …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. graeme leggett Silver badge

    in theory

    Putting the onus on the defendant in trademark issues is the reason companies pay to have trademark registration (R) rather than just declaring (TM).

    But with actual goods, there's some evidence to work with. In this cases, there's nothing done yet. A finding against an unused ambiguous brand/domain name combo could be like finding in a trademark case on the basis the trademark owner had heard that a company was thinking about producing something with a similar name but not actually done anything yet.

    I suspect Netflix will just have to watch the domain like a hawk in case owner does try something a bit infringing. The owner could sell it to Netflix, but would have to tread carefully lest it look like an attempt at a shakedown.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: in theory

      > "The owner could sell it to Netflix, but would have to tread carefully lest it look like an attempt at a shakedown."

      If an appearance of profitteering will deprive the respondent of the domain, how can he ever sell it for more than a very small pittance? Is this actually a feature, not a bug? I can't tell.

      Does he avoid naming "too high" a price by asking Netflix to make an offer? What if Netflix offers $100? How can he object without looking like an evil profitteer again?

      1 0 Reply
      1. frank ly
        Reply Icon

        Re: in theory

        "How can he object without looking like an evil profitteer again?"

        He could put it up for public auction?

        1 0 Reply
  2. edge_e
    Stop

    allowing .everything is .ridiculous

    Is there anyone who doesn't think so ?

    Edit:except those of you whose pockets are getting lined by it

    6 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: allowing .everything is .ridiculous

      >Is there anyone who doesn't think so ?

      >Edit:except those of you whose pockets are getting lined by it

      And those few are the ones that get to decide whether it happens or not. Great system. DNS itself was never designed to truly be secure and it sure as hell wasn't designed for the clusterfuck that is all of humanity (short of a handful of nerds from the 1980s). Now its critical infrastructure. Yay us.

      1 0 Reply
    2. Steve Knox
      Reply Icon

      Re: allowing .everything is .ridiculous

      Why?

      It's a nice little assertion you've got there, but you've not backed it up with anything except implicit ad hominem.

      Apart from saving a small amount of typing, how does x.anything differ from x.anything.com, which has always been available?

      1 0 Reply
      1. edge_e
        Reply Icon
        Holmes

        @Steve Knox

        If I was to resort to saying that you have an unhealthy interest in pigs rather than replying to your points, that would be ad hominem. I've not attacked anyone's character.

        The difference between x.anything and x.anything.com isn't important

        The comparison that needs to be made is between x.anything and anything.x.com

        When company or individual x registers x.com, they can then create anything.x.com and anythingelse.x.com by themselves.

        To register x.anything you have to pay. Nobody has pockets deep enough to register x.everything so companies will have to play whack-a-mole until the system changes.

        Companies don't need the extra domain space, I doubt there are many examples of companies using them to serve anything different to their .com site.

        Punters don't need them, most have no idea what the domain of the link they just clicked was.

        The only people who benefit are registrars and lawyers.

        1 0 Reply
    3. P. Lee
      Reply Icon

      Re: allowing .everything is .ridiculous

      It really doesn't make sense to expand the TLD's if in reality it doesn't expand the name space.

      If all the .news site owners are going to be trumped by .com (Reg TM) owners, what's the point in having it? Get rid of it and let them use .com/news

      It's going to get worse if you have different .com and .co.uk owners and they both want .news

      What happens then?

      1 0 Reply
  3. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Takes the same amount of work but one costs twice the other and takes twice as long. This is why these lawyers should be on a fixed fee and work in rota. Fairer to everyone except some of the lawyers bank accounts.

    1 0 Reply
  4. Steve Knox
    Paris Hilton

    Huh?

    The fact that the arbitration bodies benefit financially from finding in the trademark holders' favor through their fees has led to a long-standing criticism of the process that it is systemically biased against respondents.

    According to the rules set forth here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, the fee for the URS is nonrefundable. The arbitration body keeps it no matter which way it rules. The same holds for the appellate fee. The response fee, if applicable, is always remitted to the prevailing party; the arbitration body never keeps it.

    How does this encourage bias? Is there a some document I've missed which allows an arbitration body to collect more in fees by ruling consistently for one party over another?

    0 0 Reply
    1. jonathanb Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Huh?

      The complainant has a choice of dispute resolution processes, and will choose the one that is most likely to rule in their favour.

      0 0 Reply
    2. tim 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: Huh?

      If the arbitration body is seen to mainly rule against the complainant, they will stop using it, drying up the cashflow.

      0 0 Reply
  5. Cuddles

    "The decisions will infuriate trademark holders, who specifically designed the URS as a faster and cheaper way to stop their trademarks from being infringed."

    Given that the decisions here are based almost entirely on the fact that the sites are not in use and therefore no trademarks are being infringed, I fail to see what trademark holders have to complain about. If their trademark is being infringed, they are free to go after it. If their trademark isn't being infringed, they can't. Doesn't seem particularly complicated really.

    1 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like