Comment on Judge hands Lambo.com to Lamborghini after ruling owner acted in bad faith
NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Unpopular opinion, but the judge was right. There would be zero benefit to society to reward this absolute cybersquatter. There’s an almost zero benefit to reward a corporation. Both bad, but the corporation should get it in this case.
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
How is a cyber squatter worse than companies who squat on other things like money or diamonds.
The man bought the domain and if lambo wants it, they can buy it from him.
How long until other companies start trying to get any domain name that is part of their name now?
breakingcups@lemmy.world 4 days ago
See: Nissan.com
Scrollone@feddit.it 4 days ago
Or the poor Italian guy Luca Armani, who registered armani.it in the early '90s for his rubber stamp shop.
He tried to keep his name in a lawsuit carried by the most famous Armani, and he lost. He also lost all of his money and his shop.
bluGill@fedia.io 4 days ago
Details matter. In this case the guy shouldn't have kept the name. On the one you mention the guy should have.
Of course in both cases I am lacking full information. It may be biased sources are giving me incomplete information and if I had all the information I'd change my position.
mx_smith@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Or Mike Rowe software.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 days ago
People are debating the little guy vs the big guy, but it’s a problem when you name your company after yourself, and you share that name with a giant established brand. If you call your rubber stamp shop Armani, in Italy no less, you should expect confusion. Big companies don’t like confusion, and will pay to avoid it.
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 4 days ago
Because the domain name system is the tragedy of the commons. We all share it, and cybersquatters fucking it up for any of us fuck it up for all of us.
Companies on the other hand, are just a fucking tragedy in general.