Threatning Email :-)

[ian]

Personally I don't think it's a great idea to be registering other people's names though.

Not sure it matters unless they have copyright protection over the name, i.e. celebrities.

Send them a reply (only joking of course, ignore!) with a bill for the time it has taken you to reply.

 

[scooter]

It wasn't johnny.co.uk was it? :shock:

 

[Paullas]

Lol no

 

[ian]

It wasn't johnny.co.uk was it? :shock:

First name "here's"

 

[eddieb]

Prior to it dropping, did he have a site on it? If not then he was just squatting as there are other people with the same surname who may have wanted it but couldn't have it because of him

 

[Darren]

Prior to it dropping, did he have a site on it? If not then he was just squatting as there are other people with the same surname who may have wanted it but couldn't have it because of him

Not necessarily, he could of been using it for email.

 

[jasman]

Why not?

Depends what sort of name it is.

For celebrities, fair enough. If a celebrity or his/her agents are not competent enough to register their own name in the most popular domains then more fool them. Since they have spent time and effort trying to get their name out in the public consciousness and build up a fan base, then there are many people who could claim to want the domain as a fan. In general celebrities and their agents can afford to pay up too so it's not exploiting the poor.

For very common names eg "John Smith", fair enough. Hundreds or thousands of people of that name may wish to own johnsmith.co.uk, so they shouldn't expect to get their name for reg fee anyway as demand clearly outstrips supply by a huge margin, and a relatively high price is inevitable.

But for the majority of names, which correspond to most everyday ordinary people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, it is out of order to register them in my view. They may wish to own the domain of their own name and trying to profit from them by hiking up the price amounts to exploiting your fellow men, who can ill afford it. And if they never pay, whether on principle or because they can't afford it, then you'll have lost money on reg fees and they will have been blocked from using their own name in domain form, a lose-lose situation. So not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Murray]

But for the majority of names.

Surnames though?

Like Reynolds today was a great name

I wouldn't register firstnamesecondname but a good firstname.co.uk or secondname.co.uk sure

 

[Paullas]

It isnt a celebrity name and in google there is about 15 pages of different people/companies with it in the title so he cant claim exclusive to it.

 

[ian]

But for the majority of names, which correspond to most everyday ordinary people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, it is out of order to register them in my view.

Huh? Why would someone struggling to make ends-meat have to purchase a domain name of their name? That would be the same as someone struggling to put food on the table but buying a personalised plate for their car!

 

[Retired_Member38]

For very common names eg "John Smith", fair enough. Hundreds or thousands of people of that name may wish to own johnsmith.co.uk, so they shouldn't expect to get their name for reg fee anyway as demand clearly outstrips supply by a huge margin, and a relatively high price is inevitable.

But for the majority of names, which correspond to most everyday ordinary people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, it is out of order to register them in my view.

That makes no sense at all.

There is no difference in registering JohnSmith.co.uk or TravisAndrewMoonbeam.co.uk, assuming you're called neither. Its an attempt to sit on a domain and sell it on later.

I don't care whether people do it or not but it seems a bit silly to say its acceptable if you're going to do it on one that'll sell for a lot of money, but not for a random cheap one. Either its acceptable or it isn't....

 

[jasman]

I think it makes sense but I can also see it from the perspective you have taken and personally, I steer away away from these kinds of registrations.

To my mind the measure of how unethical it is to register other people's names corresponds to how many other people have that name, and the more people there are, proportionally their own individual rights to it decline. In other words if you punched someone in the face, obviously that is a clear wrong, however if you applied 1/10000th of the force of the punch to 10000 people - let's say by lightly brushing past 10000 people walking down the street over the course of a year, nobody would mind.

Preventing one person from having a domain name corresponding to their name is tantamount to a personal attack because you have deliberately stopped a person having a resource that they could find useful, yet is of no use to anyone else. That's clearly unethical.

Whereas if a domain name corresponds to a common name belonging to thousands of people, then no one of them could be said to have an exclusive right to it, and the domain can be thought of as being almost generic. Take john.co.uk for example, that could be perceived as a generic domain (or equivalent to generic) because there are so many people called John. It would also be quite valuable, so if someone called David was willing to pay more than anyone else, no-one would really argue with his right to it, although there might be a few disappointed Johns, but they had no exclusive right to it, so that's tough.

Now if you apply the same logic to a common first and last name combination, say johnsmith, we have a similar situation. It seems there are about 25000 people called John Smith in the UK. If we treat them all as being equal, you could say each has 1/25000 of the right to the name (and I'm speaking morally not legally, as I'm discussing whether it would be right to register it or not, not what might happen if legal vultures got involved). To my mind, such a tiny claim to the name in practical terms amounts to a negligible right to it for any one person called John Smith. But there would clearly be considerable demand for it and therefore one could invest in it without offending anyone in particular and hopefully make a good profit.

 

[aZooZa]

Lot of nonsense and irrelevant philanthropy in this thread. Just don't register celebrity names. Easy as...

 

[Skinner]

I think the townspeople of Morley (near Leeds I believe) which bears my surname should hand over the manor, and pay me taxes. The people in Morley Manor are not even called Morley.

My solicitors the Fantastic Fuller, Bullocks & Trash says I have rights as an ancestor of that town, and at some point my family may have lived there.

How dare the previous family have bought it, then sold it on for a profit, the audacity of the current family buying it. I'm gobsmacked!

So who's with me going taking it back ?

Edit: if you follow me into battle taking it back, I'll give 50% off your morley taxes, should you buy some property in morley

 

[aZooZa]

I will, but I dabs the fuller bullocks and you can have the fantastic trash :mrgreen:

 

[Paullas]

I agree with you dale 100% dont reg celeb names and stay clear.

 

[sdsinc]

Just put in the ignore pile. If he had actually taken legal advice, it would have been his solicitor who wrote to you.

My thoughts exactly. In fact the claim is not credible, the guy just did some basic research and that's why he thinks WIPO has anything to do with .uk domains.

It's always hard to comment without knowing the actual domain.
Assuming it's a family name, it may be harder to demonstrate legitimate interest. Even though such domains can be branded for business too.

He's apparently trying to gain sympathy but he's being threatening at the same time. He may have issues but he should then have retained competent counsel to handle his precious domain :-?

I bet that if you don't engage him, you probably won't hear from him again.

By the way, I have once or twice received queries from people posing as the previous holders.
But when I checked the domain history (including in archive.org) their stories didn't add up at all. They were just trying to lay their hands on a domain caught by somebody else. Do not always assume the other party is telling the truth.