Forum management - banning posts offering obvious trademarks for sale

[CrankyOldMan]

This morning I checked the Sales threads and say that Spiderman.org was listed for sale.

There's no question Spiderman is the subject of a well established trademark.

I've seen many similar offerings, ranging from product marks to celebrity names. Quite a few celebs have won WIPO proceedings recently.

To the casual observer - meaning 99.9% of people - which is likely more true:

1. Such posts - offering someone else's trademark "for sale" - create the appearance that domain resellers are cybersquatters, people who attempt to profit by co-opting other people's rights, interests, trademarks, etc.

OR

2. Such posts and activities make domain resellers look like ordinary professional property brokers?

This raised the related question:

As domain reseller forums go which will end up having the most professional reputation:

1. The one that bans the practice of listing "for sale" domains that likely contain trademarks or other "prior rights" claims.

OR

2. Forums that let anyone list anything for sale, without restriction?

Anyone care to create the appearance of professionalism and the air of legitimacy to the business of domain reselling?

At the risk of losing some "clientele" and reducing the number of posts why not impose a fairly high (resolve doubts AGAINST) standard of what can be offered for sale?

What's really to lose?

What's to gain?

[Nexus]

I recently put some celebrity names up for sale. I'm under no illusion that they could be held from a celeb looking to acquire their name. Similar to the fan that created DaveStevens.com (and later started working directly with the famous artist as he'd done a fabulous job), and the fan that created JackieChan.com. I looked recently, and they'd (JackieChan fan site maintainers) made this announcement:

Important (but sad) Announcement:
JackieChan.com is changing domain name

The JC Group (which is Jackie Chan's management) has asked for the domain name jackiechan.com. It is with heavy heart that I give up jackiechan.com, but it would be even sadder for me to be in discord with the JC Group. Therefore, this website will until further notice be at jackiechanfriends.com and jackiechan.no
Things are still pending, so stay tuned for further updates. The best way to stay updated is to join the mailing list. You are also welcome to discuss this at the message board.

Please remember, this is not the official Jackie Chan website, this is just a Jackie Chan website made by a fan for the fans. Jackie's official website can be found at www.jackie-chan.com.

I know the domain name was owned by Ultimate Search. If you're a fan of someone, sometimes I do think its "up to you" to put something up for them. Some celebrities, while well-known, will NEVER have a web presence... nevermind one that does them justice.

Recently I decided I wasn't going to pursue setting up websites for a number of domains, these among them. So, I could let them expire, request they be deleted, or sell them cheap. If handled honestly, I don't see a problem with the latter. High figure celeb (common law trademark), or Federally trademarked names are more questionable IMHO, but I think they still should be allowed sale. Perhaps a full-disclosure notice of what is known might be in order for unwary purchasers? That might be a smart addition.

A simple ban I think is a slippery slide. While most of us can identify really popular trademarks, some trademarks are potent (or just a likely to be approached), yet not readily identifiable outside their market. I purchased SanOne.com from Safesys last year, knowing full-well what it was, but still finding it interesting enough to want to own cheaply.

In the last year, names like YuGiOh.biz and Dragonball.biz have come up for appraisal. I think the notion of trademark definitely affects an appraisal, but I'm not quick to feel it should directly affect whether a sale can even be made.

Would be interesting to hear what others think.

~ Nexus

[CrankyOldMan]

As concerns a "famous mark" (celebrity) the most obvious "proper move" is to offer it directly to the person - without request for compensation. Who knows? Maybe they will be happy and impressed and send you a non-taxable gift. Maybe you will just feel better knowing what you did has a certain "it's the right thing" feel to it.

As concerns fan sites what's so hard about asking the subject of the adoration: "I would like to establish a website celebrating your accomplishments. Would you object to me using on of the following domain names: x, y, z ? Are there any photographs that you would make available without charge? This will be a not-for-profit site. Thank-you."

I don't want to veer off on a tangent but what's so hard about that? You mean, you don't ask because you have reason to believe - or think - the answer might be "no thank-you." Is respect for the object of one's affection irrelevant? Probably, in the case of obsession. Probably in the case of people substituting an identity with other for a lacking sense of self.

The worst, most obvious cases of abuse, those that give domain speculators and reseller's their bad name - cybersquatters - are those profiting off of someone else's famous mark.

But, to get back to my central theme: What does the practice of facilitating - or banning - the listing of famous marks at a forum add or take away from the whole business of domain reselling?

What is the stand that a professional forum should take on the business of registering, resellling, trafficing in and profiting from famous marks?

Should there be a realm for domain professionals, those that are willing to ahere to a certain standard of conduct?

Is there such a realm - forum, community - online at this time?

What would be the long term advantage to staking out that territory, as a "professional" forum or organizing place?

Could such a forum eventually begin to play a role in brokering and appraising domains in a meaningful, professional way?

Is there a greater long term prospect of monetarizing a forum or community if it stakes out the high ground?

[safesys]

I think its a very valid point for discussion.

The main barrier I can see is determing the cutoff point as this would be subjective. For example, sky, orange, apple and tide are all famous marks.

[mole]

No wonderwoman you call yourself cranky. Trademarks are bs on the internet. Every common generic is trademarked if you were to check, even sex is trademarked. You chose Spiderman to illustrate your point, so what if duke sells Superman in return.

Let the court decide, as they will rightfully. To make this a moral issue, is to face that consequence of having that judgement put back to you.

Every name you register no matter how generic can, may, will - be subject to legal challenge. That is the law of the jungle, you have no god given right to any name, just a will, to keep it.

[trader]

Originally posted by mole No wonderwoman you call yourself cranky. Trademarks are bs on the internet. Every common generic is trademarked if you were to check, even sex is trademarked. You chose Spiderman to illustrate your point, so what if duke sells Superman in return.....

That's for sure, it seems most every name I check has not one but a number of trademarks in various categories, not just single words but multi-word terms and phrases too.

It would seem to be a time consuming nightmare for the Forum Admins to decide on this issue. Plus, can you imagine how many protests they woud get saying they judged a name wrongly as a TM?

I also recall reading about the trademark on Sex, plus look at all the generic terms discussed here which are also TM's, like Private Lessons for example.

P.S. Is Cranky Old Man really a woman?

[CrankyOldMan]

Well, we have 1 vote for the law of the jungle, which I interpret at "anything goes".

Why am I not surprised.

Okay, any other standards of professionalism?

There are many occupations subject to standards of conduct, although each profession has its detractors, naysayers, pooh-poohers - including those within the profession that flaunt the rules.

One of the other things I've done in my life, one of my other full-time job, is running a law practice - trial law to be specific - so I've pretty much seen it all in the last 20+ years, I'm pretty well versed in rules that apply to various professions...... AND ........I've got real thick skin.....Sooooo, no matter what gets said I'm going to 1) enjory it, since I enjoy a good debate, even those where people show up just to gripe, engage in name calling, pout, etc. AND 2) do my level best to keep this dialogue on track so it leads to something productive.

It's not my forum, so I'm not making any decisions, but I've got reason to believe that there's more than a handful of intelligent entrepreneurial types here who might see some long term advantage in staking out a territory where the business of domain reselling is conducted according to some higher standard than "the law of the jungle".....

Might actually make it easier to do business in the aftermarket if there was just a little more professionalism to it all...

and then there's mole.....;-)

Who knows? Maybe there's even room for moles in professional circles.

Not that a self-respecting mole would ever chose such associations.

<edited typos>

[Nexus]

I think its a valid point of discussion. I can hear something creeping in that I don't like though. While I think the "cranky old man" persona is funny, it's tough to discuss something openly when it sounds like there's judgement and blame being cast, instead of an effort to foment a more congenial policy for moving forward.

Point. I don't adhere to the notion that people selling trademark names are by default, "bad" people or are "unprofessional".

Point. In the example I put forward above, I was considering developing a domain name for --for instance, "Michael Gross" ( www.michaelgross.com ). Star of the sci-fi series "Tremors", and former "dad" from Family Ties. I have NO IDEA how to contact him, and even if I did, not many people are familiar with the "drama" that can be associated with tracking people down, and even "donating" things to them. A number of celebrity names were dropped a one point by an organizations who's sole purpose was to keep these names from being registered by "squatters". Every name pointed to a website that gave instructions on how representatives of these celebrities could contact the webmaster to get their names. There were some nice letters about some of the celebs thanking them. The site apparently went bust though. Can't finance things for free forever. As such, I picked up a few names, and wanted to do a couple of fan websites.

I'd planned to put a note asking the "star" to contact me if they'd like to "claim" their name, but otherwise how would one attempt to track down the "agent" or estate of someone who's passed away? My opinion? Don't bother, let them come to you, if they want the name. Otherwise, assume they don't.

I've offered names to people and been dragged over the coals about it. I registered the name of "JohnBuscema.com" and offered free hosting to the guy who worked closely with this famous comicbook artist to make sure this artist had a decent prescence on the net. Hosting was politely refused, ownership of the name wasn't understood or accepted, so I've just redirected it for over a year. We had some good conversations, but it never went past that. I noticed earlier this month that the website no longer comes up. I went to a convention and talked DIRECTLY to Joe Jusko (famous fantasy painter). I even interviewed him for my website ( click to read ), but he said #1. he was already talking to someone about it (someone who didn't register his name), #2. he was trying to get into this "internet" thing... just bought a computer, but was taking only "baby steps".

I'm come to think trying to contact these people is usually a waste of your time.

I don't think its as much a moral affront as Cranky makes it out to be... Lots of room for honest business. I think "profiteering" may be important to clearly outline without trying to throw everything under the same heading.

~ Nexus

[trader]

Originally posted by CrankyOldMan
Well, we have 1 vote for the law of the jungle, which I interpret at "anything goes". Why am I not surprised. Okay, any other standards of professionalism?...................Might actually make it easier to do business in the aftermarket if there was just a little more professionalism to it all......and then there's mole.....;-) Who knows? Maybe there's even room for moles in professional circles. Not that a self-respecting mole would ever chose such associations.

There is no good reason to imply the members and this forum are unprofessional simply because we point out the major problems with the Admins administering a system to not allow the sale of alleged trademarks. I find your feedback quite insulting.

[CrankyOldMan]

C'mon. It's "too hard"?

DisenyChannel.com? Spiderman.org?

I'm not picking on anyone here, just pointing out the obvious.

I think where domain resellers get their bad name is in the obvious cases.

Generic words are generic words and I don't propose a ban on Money.biz, or Tide.org, or whatever. Those are legitimate judgment calls.

But, what about the standard - that applies to many professions - of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety?

Again, I don't think this applies to generic, common words.

But how many WIPO wins by celebrities on famous persons names will it take to make the point that profitting from someone else's identity is one of the dubious practices of the domain specuation market?

I'm aware there's been some wins in that area for someone "not the person" but the rationale for those decisions have often required rather special facts. The rule would tend to be "it won't fly". The exception would be "under these limited circumstances it might.".

By why even implicitly endorse the practice by putting up such names for sale where most everyone would agree it's a dubious practice, likely subject to challenge, and one worst practices - the type that smears and tarnishes the reputation of people involved in the domain aftermarket?

Why not say "do that somewhere else" we neither expressly nor implicitly endorse the practice AND we specifically choose to disassociate ourselves with THAT practice?

So, let's start with one simple rule: No posting of the names of famous people or celebrities at this forum. (Sell 'em somewhere else if you must.) Why? Because this is one of the most obvious examples of what gives us ALL a bad name.

"Oh, geez, if you're going to do that them I'm taking my toys (domains) and going to play with Billy - not you".

Yeah, that would be the mark of a professional.

Again, my point is to address the question: What would it take to stake out a reputation for being the place where domain "professionals" congregate? What would be the benefit from having a relationship with such a forum? More trust from buyers? Higher prices? More credible price/market evaluations? Panel evaluations that people might actually be willing to pay for and that might actually have value/credibility? Domains posted for sale at a place where people might be more inclined to trust the price and process?

This would be the next step up from Sedo IMHO. Listing domains where - in a particular section of the forum - the domains only get listed if they comport with a panel evaluation (range) of price. You aren't forced to list the domain, but I know corporate buyers might be more comfortable if there was a credible appraisal that they could rely upon when telling the VP of marketing "we paid a fair price" (and here's the credible proof).

[Nexus]

Originally posted by CrankyOldMan
C'mon. It's "too hard"?
DisenyChannel.com? Spiderman.org?

I can agree on DisneyChannel.com, but I think there's room for discussion on Spiderman.org (especially because I've personally applied for Marvel's fan site agreement and gotten approval, and ORGs are generally percieved as a non-commerical effort). If we're going to talk past each other, I'd rather just not.

If we view everything under the same umbrella, and I make specific examples regarding common law trademarks, and you start talking about corporate trademarks... this is talking PAST each other. I've had these types of conversations a million times, they feel disingenuous to me, and a complete waste of time. Cranky, you're being "righteous", and as such there isn't any room for having a real discussion. I don't like talking just to talk.

~ Nexus

[mole]

Originally posted by CrankyOldMan
What would it take to stake out a reputation for being the place where domain "professionals" congregate? What would be the benefit from having a relationship with such a forum?

In life, you see both good and bad. In domains, you see both good and bad. In forums, you live to see the good and bad. Unless of course, you have been a bad boy and haven't been going to church ...| and feel the need to vent, release, diffuse maybe this moral guilt in a virtual thread.

[Nexus]

By why even implicitly endorse the practice by putting up such names for sale where most everyone would agree it's a dubious practice, likely subject to challenge, and one worst practices - the type that smears and tarnishes the reputation of people involved in the domain aftermarket?

And if you're going to continue in a coherent way, please establish a succinct definition for the type of term that falls under "such names" (dubiously sold). Without immediately pointing fingers, and condemning the practice, we ALL would need to agree on exactly WHAT "the practice" is. Otherwise, again... this discussion is/will be a huuuuuuge towering gargatuan over-sized waste of time.

Righteous people see things as black & white even when they are NOT. A definition that says "If you think there might be a trademark dispute over a domain name, you shouldn't sell it" is a naive one as many would point out. I believe the world should be a happy place, and people should "play nice" too, but I don't support draconian crusades in getting there.

The argument that goes "Oh, get real... you KNOW the type of domain name I'm talking about" is as bad as when my mother would reem myself or someone else about something she defined as "common sense", even if it seemed very unclear to me at the time.

An exercise in futility.

~ Nexus

[CrankyOldMan]

Nexus - I find it easier to hold a dialogue about standards if we can cite some examples of what we are talking about. That's all.

Tell me an organized standard of acceptable business practices that doesn't smack of "right versus wrong, not okay, not acceptable, etc."?

How do you drive a conversation leading anywhere in the effort to define a professional standard of conduct without evoking "right versus not right", "acceptable versus not acceptable", "approved versus rejected"?

Look, I understand that in a different world there are churchs of conscience and there are churchs of right living and rules. That's another discussion. Discussions implicating right versus wrong - or something akin, even righteousness - have some pretty powerfu/energizingl social baggage attached to them. If you've got issues about things "close to that" - what's right/wrong - I understand. Been there. Done that. Life's a tough nut to crack. I may be headed to hell for my inability to answer all the questions rightly.

Am I capable of being righteous? Deeply. I don't mean to offend. Grow some thicker skin. Deal with it. I'm not here to debate debating or to stake out the higher moral ground for myself. I'm sticking my neck out and setting myself up to suffer the slings and arrows in a real attempt to define a standard that may lend us all a bit more respect. So, if I find myself subjected to scorn - so what? I expect it. Move on.

I am here to initiate a dialogue - hopefully leading to some meaningful action - which dialogue might start raising the bar for domain sellers from cybersquatter to professional. How do we separate ourselves from that which has given "us" - resellers - a bad name, bad image, bad PR.

So, I ask again: What, if any standards of professionalism would you apply to "the industry"? Does the industry have anything to gain by saying "that's them, not us doing that". THEY are not professionals.

Look, one thing that happens in any serious debate is an attempt - conscious or unconscious - to derail the debate by "debating the debate". It happens all the itme. Sometimes it's a tool. Sometimes I just think it's a natural human response - an avoidance - to confronting an issue and driving meaningful change.

One of my other full-time jobs was being a mayor and coucilman for 6 years. I'm well acquainted with debates in the political realm and how they get nowhere sometimes. The whole point is often to "not change". Imbedded constituencies come out, cry the loudest, things don't happen - until things reach crisis proportions.

[mr webname]

crank·y1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krngk)

Having a bad disposition; peevish.
Having eccentric ways; odd.
Full of bends and turns; crooked: a cranky mountain road.
Working unpredictably; erratic: a cranky old truck.
Rickety; loose.