This seems like more of a trademark issue, as the Lanham (Trademark) Act is what provides for certain kinds of relief against cybersquatting. Check out § 1125(d) [43(d)].

If your client really wants that domain name, and feels the sum of money being asked is unfair, he or she should find a lawyer.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and this shouldn’t be construed as legal advice.

Moral of the story: watch your backs guys, and apparently trust no one.

Only the moral of this story? You seemed surprised at the outcome of sharing business development in a public setting.

I also informed him they’re in violation of copyright law…

One really bad way to handle these situations is to pretend you’re a lawyer and tell people that they’re violating laws when they quite clearly aren’t. All you’ve accomplished is making it obvious to them that they’ve hooked a sucker fish.

What James said.

As I realize I didn’t expressly state, my logo is in use on their site which is would be the copyright violation. Ehauge, were the name trademarked this would be very easily legally remedied but unfortunately it isn’t.

My attorney actually is looking into it, unfortunately this seems to be (after a brief discussion or two) a case of sleazy but mostly legal actions.

terminal, lesson learned, believe me. I didn’t think that there would be interest in an obscure domain name that was going to be registered in the near future.

Ah. When I’d looked at your other post before, the images lower in the thread hadn’t loaded. I see your point now about potential copyright infringement.

chrisfig said:
> I didn’t think that there would be interest
> in an obscure domain name that was
> going to be registered in the near future.

i can’t remember if i actually read once that
it is in fact true, or if i just dreamed that part,
but i’ve long suspected that network solutions
(and other domain-name sellers) will actually
inform squatters about the domain-names that
are checked for availability. i definitely noticed
a pattern that domain-names i checked one week
were suspiciously unavailable the following week,
but — tellingly — available for sale at a price that
was significantly higher than the customary rate...

that domain-name sat unbought since the dawn
of time, and then someone bought it _last_week_?
i don’t know. something is awfully strange there.

so now i don’t even check until i’m ready to buy.

unfortunately, in your case, you just plain blew it.
you publicized a domain-name without owning it.
but thanks for admitting it, as a reminder for us...

-bowerbird

p.s. i see in the other thread that someone is
encouraging you to fight this. that just might
be a good idea. the dates are perfectly clear...
and the fact that they _were_ willing to sell it
to you indicates that they are indeed squatters.
they coulda said “no, we really want to keep it.”

.. [I]’ve long suspected that network solutions (and other domain-name sellers) will actually inform squatters about the domain-names that are checked for availability..

While that’s rather hard to believe, something like it happened to one of my colleagues — checked his nick for availability and then tried to register it. Too late — he never bothered to contact the b*stard (and never used that particular site again to check domain names).

...the fact that they _were_ willing to sell it
to you indicates that they are indeed squatters.

It might work toward a showing of bad faith. This is from the Lanham Act, and is in reference to the factors that can be considered to determine whether a defendant acted in bad faith, § 1125(d) [43(d)](1)(b)(VI):

(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

But it all comes back to registration, use, and distinctiveness.*

*I’m not a lawyer.

I think the OPs best bet is to use the squatters stupidity in stealing his logo. A letter from a real lawyer threatening action on copyright infringement should open up the domain name quite quickly. The squatter will know that while he might have gotten away with scooping the domain, using the OPs artwork is just stupid, and open to legal action.

(Not that I would spend more money than just the letter, which will probably cost in the low three figures ... any real legal action would probably cost more than the domain is worth.)

Don, in a lovely bit of knowing the right people a good friend of mine is an attorney with a specialty in intellectual property . If a trademark was held on the name this would be a pretty clearcut matter, but that unfortunately isn’t the case. There’s a good read on this site for anyone interested regarding domain name infringement:
http://www.chrisstewartlaw.com/domain.php?page=domain

The infringing artwork has already been removed, sort of, it’s now been hacked apart into a stacked wordmark from my original horizontal version, but I do have screengrabs of the original pages. I’m actively discussing the legal options with my attorney so I’ll refrain from any more comment on this for the moment. Thanks for the support, I’ll let you guys know what happens.

And again, be careful what you post. I’ve certainly learned my lesson.

Guys, i have a question here.

How about font design and font name? Can the same thing happen too? Any legal protection over our design especially if someone from another country steal your idea/names and run with it?

That’s why I always hesitate to post my font in progress here.

That’s why I always hesitate to post my font in progress here.

A very good idea.

Digital fonts are software products and the copyright laws that apply to software applies to fonts. Generally speaking concepts cannot be copyrighted but coding can. The U.S. Copyright Act provides a set of exclusive legal rights to the owner (or “author”) of a copyrightable work (which includes software and thus fonts): the right to reproduce the copyrighted works; the right to prepare “derivative works”; and the right to distribute (sell, license, etc.). This set of “exclusive” rights includes the right to block others from doing the same thing.
In the case of fonts made using font-making software, your design, when published, will constitute unique code which has been generated by your exclusive design and it is this unique code that is copyrighted even though you did not directly write the code line by line. It is a manifestation of your concept - and is thus subject to copyright.
The name - if unique - is a trademark issue.