Comments on: When the site owner is to blame

By: Martin Neumann

Martin Neumann — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:55:59 +0000

Andy – that’s the problem with the “blogosphere” – posts scroll so fast by us and off the main page that we never get a good go at it.

I see nothing wrong with bringing up a 4 month old post and discussing it. Lots of “food for thought” posts are lost in the clutter.

Still reckon spending $8 could have saved them any trademark issues that they may bring about now – seems they screwed up by not looking after their trademark properly.

By: franky

franky — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:32:36 +0000

Linkbait (the post/whine)

By: Andy Beard

Andy Beard — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:55:02 +0000

The original post is dated Nov 6 – I hardly call that jumping on the bandwagon.

Sure they have no real cause for complaint if they abandon something in that way, though as Brian says, there might be trademark issues.

By: Ajay

Ajay — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:37:44 +0000

I agree with you totally Duncan. This is also the reason I tell people to ensure that their domains are renewed well in advance.

It’s become common for people to blame registrars and domain hijackers for “capturing” a domain they didn’t renew.

By: Brian Clark

Brian Clark — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:49:31 +0000

>>he legally gave up all rights to it.

I agree the site owner is dumb for letting the domain go, but they can still have rights based on trademark. The UDRP is highly slanted in favor of the trademark holder, so with a lot more hassle than 8 bucks at Go Daddy, they can still get the domain back. Seems pretty silly though, right?

By: Martin Neumann

Martin Neumann — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:36:05 +0000

This is bizarre to say the least – I mean “consent” !!!

I’ve purposely not renewed domain names in the past and they’ve been taken up – once given up it has nothing to do with me.

And if the domain you don’t want anymore but is still relevant to your brand then pay the damn few dollars to keep it going and under your ownership. Sheesh!