It doesn't look like he was CyberSquatting to me. I hope it resolves in his favor. If the person bringing the suit should win it would set a bad precedent for all Internet business.
It's almost textbook bullying. According to the attached pdfs, Kneen has only sold 2 domains in the last 11 years. He'd have to be a really shitty cybersquatter to pull off those numbers.
Maybe that they'll have to meet in person many people that are reading these news now and be asked about it. Many embarrassing conversations will follow.
The guy's name is Harsh, what other actions would you expect from him?
But seriously, looking at the doc and not mentioned in the article. Harsh apparently tried to negotiate, failed, then tried to "transfer" the domain. When Kneen called him out on this, Harsh suggested it was someone else, and that he wouldn't have done this since he found a suitable alternative.
So I'm pretty sure Harsh was being purposely manipulative in that situation. None of this makes any sense and is a waste of resources so I hope Harsh loses badly.
Now if you're going to tell me that Harsh Meta isn't the best computer-game supervillian name ever, I don't know what is.
What's particularly sad to see is that in the process of publishing the court filings, they've also very obviously published the defendants home address too (whois not withstanding).
Not only was he being manipulative, he was being outright dishonest.
On 25 June, he told Kneen that "it was an internal mixup and the error has been corrected" -- a day after the civil suit was filed (cf. screenshot of tweet in article).
To me -- and possibly to a judge -- that shows "bad faith".
Since WorkBetter is a co-working space, I'm guessing that their target market is, largely, folks like many of us on HN: those in the tech industry who work remotely. These are the same people who are going to Google the company to gather as much info about it as possible and then be turned off or put off by the fact that they'd sue someone over a domain name dispute. Some people wouldn't care, obviously, but I wouldn't want to be a customer of an organization that filed such frivolous lawsuits just because they didn't get their way.
A dismissal of the suit, initiated by the Plaintiff, would be in the best interest of both parties, in my opinion.
I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then.
The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong.
However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, but how to tell if a domain is unused? It won't be difficult to automate some "working" site for parked domains (think of those blogs that are populated with content automatically scraped from real sites.) Other ideas?
If you define "unused" domain as "doesn't have a working website associated to it" then this definition is (imo) wrong. The internet is more than just websites. I have several domains that don't have any websites associated with them, but I still use them for things such as email, hostnames, etc.
Why does it need to be prevented exactly? Why is the internet different than anything other situation where people see an opportunity to make money and take advantage of that opportunity? Like buying real estate or wine, or art and so on?
It is trivial anyway to "use" a domain name. Are you further suggesting that someone who is legitimately "using" a domain name (and who is going to decide what use is anyway) then can't sell that domain name? And does that mean they can't sell the business that is attached to that domain name? Or you are going to have some tribunal that looks into the facts of every single case and decides 'ok this is a "real" business the domain can be sold, "no this isn't sorry"'?
Because, it favours those who have more money. People who can afford a few dollars/pounds, mostly from the western countries, can keep domains booked for years. Others in the developing or under-developed world don't have that luxury... but the internet is a more global/democratic place... or should be.
You haven't really said why that should matter though. There are other alternatives and essentially many things in the world favor "those who have more money", right?
In my opinion, it is wrong to sit on a scarce resource that you didn't create and are not using, thereby preventing anyone else making use of it.
Wine and art are dissimilar cases because they can be created in as large a quantity
as there is a market for.
Real estate, on the other hand, is a very similar case, and in my opinion there should be laws against playing dog in the manger with real estate - either an outright ban or a hefty penalty in the form of extra property tax.
Though I'm not quite sure how you would go about defining and enforcing such laws for domain names.
It is not a scare resource. It is simply, like with wine or art, viewed as valuable by those who have decided that they want it and don't want the easily available alternatives. [1]
If you can't get ycombinator.com you can get yycombinator.net or ycombinator.somenewtld (that was just released).
And Wine and Art of the type that has value can't be created in as large a quantity as there is a market for anyway (cheaper mass produced wine can of course). If there wasn't scarcity the value would not be as great. With domains the reason the value is high is similar. There is only one "bell.com" and if you want that name and not "thebell.com" or bell.xyz you need to pay the person who got to it first (legitimately I might add).
This is all just sour grapes. Somebody wakes up one morning and decides that life isn't fair because the domain that they want is owned by someone else. Might even be a bakery on main street that got to "mycakes.com" first (made that up ..)
> "Real estate, on the other hand, is a very similar case, and in my opinion there should be laws against playing dog in the manger with real estate - either an outright ban or a hefty penalty in the form of extra property tax."
Ridiculous free market system works like this and always has. You are free today to buy real estate at absolute bargain prices in Newark NJ and sit on it for years and try to make some money later. Go a short distance north and you will end up in Manhattan where you won't buy a parking space for the same 4x price. What do you want to do now have the state take all property that people have acquired legitimately and redistribute it? Ridiculous.
[1] And maybe when someone decides to name their company they should consider what names they can buy prior to deciding to use a domain that they will not be able to buy, and then crying about how unfair the system is because it is not available right?
The legal fees will be way more than that. They probably figured since he was out of the country they would get a default judgement. There's a new business model for you. go around filing lawsuits in different jurisdictions and get default judgements. Then go to the domain provider and get it swithced.
I've also been sitting on a bunch of domainnames; all with the interest of "maybe some day" projects. One can hardly call that cybersquatting. It is, however very frustrating these days, .com is still king and for example I had whole dictionaries running for my keyword*.com -- and surprisingly enough, even the most insane combinations were taken. Ofcourse, selling a premium domain once in a while for 15k, makes it possible to hog 100's of other domains. Regardless of this frustrating setup, as it is now, I still prefer it over some kind of regulated way where people can just steal away your side-project's old domainname, just because they trademarked it. It's the wild west, yes for sure, but often, still it's better then an over-regulated state.
Don't be so down on what you do. It's not hogging and it's not cybersquatting. This whole concept of it being wrong to register domains was back in the mid 90's when there was no cost and people would register names with clear trademark rights (like panavision.com) with the sole idea of selling it to only one person. The trademark owner. Not the same as what you and many others are doing.
Let's say a name that you would one day sell for $15k was registered by a flower shop that used it for business. In that case if someone else came along and wanted that name they would very well have to pay more than 15k for it and might not be able to purchase it at all.
right but also, one thing to remember is, an old domainname; depends on the extension, but some of them were not cheap as in these days. maybe it was my inexperience, but I have some domains I paid 50$ for back in the days/year. so, in 10 years time you get to the point of: should I let it go, or am I already too deep in? But letting it go for $100, well, just would be a big loss. In that regard, letting it go for say 100-200, for an old domain, is just breaking even or even making a loss. though it's likely not to be perceived like that. some of us are just too deep in, and just would like to break even..
Whether you should keep or let go totally depends on the domain name and what your money situation is, not what you paid in the past that money is gone. If you care
to disclose the domain I can render an opinion on what I would do based on my knowledge and experience.
He has a domain (land) that the startup (property developer) wants but refuses to sell. He's trying to use domain squatting laws (eminent domain laws) to force an ownership transfer.
Yes, but local governments are regularly in bed with big money interests which would include land developers. So, the land developer gets the local government in his pocket and convinces them to use eminent domain to make a project happen that will bring lots of tax revenue to the government.
I remember here some nasty comments about the previous owner of the dropbox.com domain (similar situation of an old unused domain), calling him squatter etc when Dropbox finally acquired it.
I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?
Is it society that would be benefiting from Harsh taking away Keen's domain? Or is it Harsh? By defining the benefit as being to "society" one might sound noble while masking the reality: Harsh is attempting to steal Keen's domain name in a sleazy and opportunistic fashion. Defining this kind of hijacking as a benefit to society is misdirection at best.
It doesn't matter how long Kneen has sat on his domain. The only reason the domain has value is because Kneen found it worth registering, and Harsh now wants it. If Kneen had registered www.:-mgpdgwcpdgw.con instead, he'd have been perfectly in his right to do so, and no one (presumably) would be interested in taking his domain. So why should someone else get a chance to take it away just coz he wants to? As long as there is no company called workbetter, the domain might as well be gibberish, and gibberish.com is not valuable to society.
That is like telling that most of a billionaire's billions are not really worthwhile to them and that they are uselessly "squatting" on them when instead they could be put to good use by someone else. One's possessions legally acquired are one's own to do what one wishes with it! Including sitting uselessly on them.
I understand your general point, but I think it'd be highly problematic to start assessing ownership of things based solely on whether someone is doing something useful enough with them.
As suggested by the only 2 domain sells, he didn't buy them for the money, so he may have bought them for a reason or idea in his head. Who hasn't had an idea that could resound to "WorkBetter"
And there are "punishments" to prevent someone from sitting on a domain that they have no intent to use. We can assume that Kneen has paid about $160 in domain renewal fees.
However, I do like your idea of preventing "doing nothing". Just as ICAHN requires up to date information, maybe they should require that you direct it to a host that is to do something other than to sell the domain after X years.
When we can't afford to buy something, do we then say that the seller is "sitting" on the product?
I would like to buy a cottage on the lakeshore, but the owner (who doesn't use it) won't sell it to me at the price I would like to pay. Perhaps I should sue him?
Isn't this a problem that is hopefully solved by the huge number of new TLDs. I think it will eventually be a non-problem.
I have seen some many startups using .co, .io, and even an early stage using a .technology. I actually saw Harris Teeter, The Grocery Store, opening a new location in Northern Va and advertising that it was hiring with giant banner that said "harristeeter.jobs".
.com is here to stay, but there is still room for more top-TLDs
Society does not need to "benefit". His domain is is property, and some idiotic "start-up" certainly does not need to steal it. If their business relies on a name, then it's a worthless business.
I purchased a domain name about 5-6 years ago that I had every intention of creating something for. However, time and resources have slipped away from me and I've simply not gotten to it and my interest in the project has waned.
In the mean time, I've been contacted about selling the domain twice. Both times, the persons who contacted me, have failed to follow through on the purchase. I continue to renew the domain name in the hopes that someday, I'll get to the actual project, or perhaps my kids will.
Having said that, there are lots of things that would benefit society as a whole if we aren't using them, cars, houses, money, etc. I would argue that a domain name may, in some miniscule way, benefit society as a whole, but let's not kid ourselves, there are far more important things to accomplish than suing someone over a domain name he bought 16 years ago.
For the amount he was willing to sell for my guess is he just hadn't been approached yet. The article made it sound like he would sell it cheaply as long as the buyer was going to actually use it and not just resell it. If those implications are true I'd say we benefit as a society.
No, the renewal fee is fixed. The comment you're responding to suggests taxation on an appraised value. If you're sitting on a domain name for which there are documented offers of, say, $100,000, an appraised tax would assess you annually N% of $100,000.
Yes we do. This is exactly the kind of society we want, where you can do as you please with your property as long as it does not psychologically, financially, physically hurt anyone.
Otherwise we will begin to go in your refrigerator and take the food that is certain to end in the garbage, go in your closet and take the clothes you haven't worn in x years, give you your money back for the vacation home you bought and visit only 7 days out of the year and remains locked the rest of the time.
Good point. Society should favour those who take fallow domain names and turn them into productive IP!
I suspect he did "nothing" (our term) with them by simply getting mere email via that domain, or running a background service, or even just musing in the back of his mind about building a business for which workbetter.com would be a good domain.
But let's just say Mehta starts his "coworking" space. Then perhaps society later deems it good to have a program that takes the underemployed and increases their skill levels. Or encourage those whose jobs have been replaced by robots to find more spiritually fulfilling and socially valuable volenteer jobs in the community. Then we can take the worksbetter.com name away from the useless coworking space and redirect it to a socially more beneficial use!
Look, I hate squatters, but Keen seems hardly even close to being one of them. What he is is someone who shows that the cost of getting rid of squatters is higher than the burden of having those parasites around.
That is actually how trademark already works, if you have enough money. E.g. well funded brands like Coke, Google, Facebook, can easily use trademark to retroactively remove rights to a name from anyone who wasn't actively using it for some non-squatting purpose - within certain trademark and legal scopes.
Doesn't matter if someone simply owned property with that name prior to the trademark. The test is more complex than that.
I am not sure if UK or US law will apply but in Commonwealth countries there is a clause in trademark law called Prior Use.
Basically if you are using an unregistered-trademark which is then later registered you are not considered to be infriging if you have been using this trademark before the trademark was registered.
Cyber squatting laws specifically call out that you need to have obtained the name with ill intent (i.e with intent to ransom it to an already registed trademark holder).
So no, that is not how trademark works, atleast in the codes of law I am familiar with.
I have sympathy for you but does it benefit society at large that you bought some comic books 20 yrs ago and did not yet sell them and still keep them in the attic?!
Would you argue that the guy who has owned the beautiful un developed downtown property for 16 (or 60) years should be forced to sell it to build a W hotel because it's a "better use" of the land? How about building an orphanage? To me it's the very definition of property rights. I get to do what I want with my property, including doing nothing (as long as I don't otherwise break the law).
Same could be said about real estate or any kind of assets in that matter. Thesaurizing isn't and shouldn't be illegal, this is a cornerstone to the right to personal property.
My company has 41 telecommuting employees out of NYC. I've sent the article to everyone in management, and I'll make sure we never use their services. If you disagree with the tactics of this company, tell everyone not to use their service. Email the company.
Oddly, I can't determine what location this is for. The workbetter.us domain redirects to a Squarespace landing page that has no real info (who, where, etc.). It seems they are mostly doing business as OfficeLinks (NYC and Chicago) and own the .com for that domain outright, so why do they have to go after this guy?
I doubt Kneen will lose, my old startup PAID for a domain that was the legal name of another company held by a reseller, we didn't even file a counterclaim and they lost the dispute resolution process essentially because they were the low bidder.
Why go to court? Why not use the fees you'd pay for a trial to either put in a much higher offer for the domain, or to pay a marketing company to rebrand your company as something where the domain name is available?
Regardless of the outcome, the only winner will be the lawyers.
Looks EXACTLY like cybersquatting to me. You have to learn to read behind the lines here. I've had to deal with these people before, they are infuriating. Heres the facts that suck
- Has the domain for 16 years, doing nothing with it.
- Strings a long a deal for purchase because it doesn't meet his demands.
- Continues to fight extremely hard to do nothing with said domain.
I find it convenient the author never mention why the guy backed out of the deal, probably because his demand was $50k+ and completely unreasonable.
I haven't checked to see if there's an MX (or other) RRs for that zone, but just because there isn't a web page (or something more than a "parking" page) doesn't mean he's "doing nothing with it".
Purchasing domain names is the most frustrating experience. Why there is no transparent market is beyond me. Mehta's tactics are clearly abusive, but if someone was holding onto a domain name for 16 years and not doing anything with it is more infuriating to me. There really needs to be a use it or lose it policy.
How exactly do you define "doing something" with a domain? The Internet is not just the web and email. I own several domains that have no publicly accessible web sites or email servers; to declare that these domain are unused, however, is ludicrous. Do you advocate creating even more bureaucracy on the Internet by forcing domain owners to jump through hoops implementing some official definition of a "proper domain services" to prove to the public that their names are used? Shouldn't simply paying the recurring registration fee be enough?
For the life of me every time this issue comes up there are people who end up saying the same thing as what you are replying to.
That is that it's just so unfair and unjust that the name they want was purchased by someone before them and that they can't use it or buy it cheaply or at all. [1] I don't know why people seem to think the Internet is different than other ways people make money buying and selling. For example coin collecting, art work, wine to name only a few things. And of course land and housing as you are mentioning.
[1] Try buying a domain name from google or a host of large "we don't need any more money" type of companies. You will learn to love anyone who is in the business of actually selling the domains that they own because given the right offer they will at least sell those names to you.
(Keeping in mind that laws vary in different nations/states...) Adverse possession laws usually only apply if a squatter takes possession of a property without official title and uses that property for a length of time without being challenged. The principle of adverse possession might apply if Mehta had somehow hijacked the domain records and used the domain for a number of years without Kneen noticing and acting to retake control. Even then, adverse possession does not apply if the squatter used illegal means to obtain or keep control of the property (i.e., a domain hijacking).
But adverse possession does not simply allow one entity to come in, declare the owning entity to not be using a property, and assume legal control. As a land-owning entity, I am not required to "use" my land, and as long as I kick squatters out in a reasonable amount of time, adverse possession does not affect me.
The article makes it sound like he was willing to sell very cheaply on the condition that the new owner actually use the domain and not resell it. That's not really squatting behavior.
"Mehta made it clear he was interested only in the name and Kneen reconsidered briefly, even proposing some restrictions including a required payment if Mehta resold the domain. Ultimately, however, Kneen refused to sell."
The article sets a slight bias in favour of Kneen already. So, many people might sympathise with him more. But who knows what negotiation talks actually happened?! The tone, the mood..
The coming generations should have a better chance at finding domain names I feel. So I personally would side with the one trying to acquire the domain name for his/her registered company.
> But who knows what negotiation talks actually happened?! The tone, the mood..
That is irrelevant, though. We know they didn't come to an agreement, yet Office Space (that's their name, really) pursued the domain transfer anyway. That is fraudulent in my book.