8 ms·
Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL
- jebblue 11y agoIt 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.
- sfeather 11y agoThe key take away is the part of the plaintiff's filing that seems to want to redefine 'register' to include 'renew'.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoWhich is going to look ridiculous as soon as it hits court, because there's clear precedent for the standard meaning - sixteen years of it. Team Harsh are probably hoping for an internet-ignorant judge. I wouldn't want to bet on their likely success with that gambit.
- spitfire 11y agoThat's going to be an interesting conversation. "Mr.Mehta when was your business started?" "2003". "And when was the domain in question registered." ".... uh, 1999". "Are you sure you want to proceed?".
- marcosdumay 11y agoMost of the problem is that he'll have to go into a foreign court just to keep a domain he had for ages.
- therobot24 11y agoIt'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.
- MrSourz 11y agoI agree with you. The best part of the article was the two legal documents. Fascinating stuff and good to know about.
- keithpeter 11y agoWon't Web searches about WorkBetter always point to news about this case now? Sort of bad PR even before the new company gets started. An 'out of court' settlement would be better perhaps for both parties.
- jlgaddis 11y agoSince 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.
- keithpeter 11y agoSuch an outcome would be much cheaper as well. Not quite a co-working space but the place below has sprung up in Birmingham as part of a much larger organisation (or franchise) http://birmingham.impacthub.net/what-is-impact-hub/ http://birmingham.impacthub.net/what-is-impact-hub/
- shkkmo 11y agoI 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?
- madengr 11y agoSociety 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.
- sp332 11y agoThe bigger question is whether anyone has the authority to take it away from him.
- solve 11y agoTrademark law probably says yes.
- nissehulth 11y agoIt seems the trademark in this case didn't exist when he registered the domain 16 years ago. The domain name is just a simple phrase in English.
- jpgvm 11y agoExcept in this case the domain was registered 16 years ago. You can't just see a domain you like, go register a trademark for it and demand they give it to you. Atleast not for .com.
- solve 11y agoThat 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.
- solve 11y agoForcing squatters to have to file a trademark to retain their squatted domains would improve the squatting situation 10000x. Clearly the current Workbetter.com owner is squatting the name.
- mbrameld 11y agoThe 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.
- shkkmo 11y agoThat's not what the article says at all: "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."
- mbreese 11y agoIt's only squatting if someone already owned the trademark. That clearly was't the case 16 years ago. A startup tried to buy a domain and failed. So instead of moving on, they decided to sue. Sounds like a winning plan to me.
- solve 11y agoIt's squatting because: Workbetter.com Try going to the domain.
- swang 11y agoThe 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.
- BuildTheRobots 11y agoNot just "Harsh", but "Harsh Mehta". 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).
- afarrell 11y agoIsn't Harsh just a mildly-common Indian name like Richard?
- S4M 11y agoProbably Harshil is. Harsh must be the shortened version.
- obstinate 11y agoLet's make fun of names from other cultures! Real cool.
- akash_m 11y agoIts not Haaaarsh. Its H-rsh, which means joy in Hindi/Marathi.
- jlgaddis 11y agoNot 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".
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rbosinger 11y agoI thought that when this happens that you just go register workbetter.ly or something. Isn't that the way of the web?
- kennywinker 11y agoExactly. And then when your company starts to do better, you throw $xx,xxx at the owner of the .com version and getdropbox.com becomes dropbox.com.
- chaosfox 11y agosometimes money is not enough, see steam.com
- redblacktree 11y agoHow odd. I'm sure they could get a small fortune for that name.
- nnain 11y agoThe 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.
- mattmanser 11y agoUh, no, it doesn't. Just because you happen to wish the world and the law worked differently doesn't make the article biased.
- darkstar999 11y ago> 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.
- moonpoint 11y agoThis is same argument that real estate sharks use to use eminent domain and alleged blight to bully property owners.
- darkstar999 11y agoCan you elaborate? I'm having trouble making the connection from domain names to real estate.
- lsaferite 11y agoHe 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.
- darkstar999 11y agoBut isn't eminent domain only available to the government?
- lsaferite 11y agoYes, 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.
- darkstar999 11y agoThis article isn't very good. The first twitter embed is out of context. Had me quite confused. Anyway, the $500 offer is pretty insulting for this "premium" domain name. No wonder it didn't get sold.
- sharemywin 11y agoThe 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.
- tptacek 11y agoThe unfortunate thing about the case is that both parties are Internet natives and, Mehta especially, part of the startup ecosystem. What the fuck does this mean?
- cognitivesys 11y agothey are tech people
- albedoa 11y agoIt means they were present on the internet before the vast majority of its current population.
- pmontra 11y agoMaybe 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. Or that an Internet native should not do this.
- rubiquity 11y agoThey were born in Internet and have since relocated elsewhere but still journey back to Internet from time to time.
- yellowapple 11y agoInternet is also home to a thriving ecosystem where mystical creatures called "startups" frolic freely in the forests.
- aptwebapps 11y agoIt's an odd statement, but I guess it means the author thinks they (or one of them) should know better.
- pmontra 11y agoI 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?
- gst 11y agoIf 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.
- pmontra 11y agoThat's a legitimate use and that's another reason for it is difficult to detect if a domain is used.
- larrys 11y agoWhy 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"'?
- nnain 11y agoBecause, 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.
- physcab 11y agoPurchasing 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.
- nedwin 11y agoWhat other property rights should be under your "use it or lose it proposal"? Land? Housing?
- yen223 11y agoIt already is, sort of: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/property-and-land-titles/land-titles/dealing-with-titles/adverse-possession http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/property-and-land-titles/land-ti...
- hga 11y agoWe indeed do that with land and housing, aka real estate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession But the Internet landscape is very different and less finite in nature.
- lordcorusa 11y ago(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.
- fleitz 11y agoI 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. (We both had trademarks in respective countries)
- lazyant 11y agoI 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.
- rgbrenner 11y agoOK.. let's check that. here's the HN post for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=880522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=880522 Let's look at some of the comments: - Finally, I don't think this owner, nor Justintv.com, are cybersquatters since they owned their domains since the 90's. - I agree with you, but in this case the original owner wasn't a squatter. - note that I don't like squatters either, but who can tell that he wasn't legitimate when he registered it first? - Not to mention that he registered it in the 90's! How does that possibly count as squatting? Nope.. not really seeing any "nasty comments"
- limeyy 11y agoI'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.
- larrys 11y agoDon'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 $15k was registered by a flower shop that used it for business. In that case if someone else came along and wanted that name they would very well have to pay more than 15k for it and might not be able to purchase it at all.
- limeyy 11y agoright but also, one thing to remember is, an old domainname; depends on the extension, but some of them were not cheap as in these days. maybe it was my inexperience, but I have some domains I paid 50$ 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..
- larrys 11y ago
- liquidcool 11y agoOddly, 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?
- ziles88 11y agoLooks 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.
- jlgaddis 11y agoI 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".
- onion2k 11y agoWhy 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.
- Simulacra 11y agoMy 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.