Why would you? It's standard practice to set up a catch-all for your domain and you can just configure postfix to do that.
That's crazy. This guy whould have been awarded damages. He was the first to use Nissan in America before the auto-company in 1984.
"For images, the price is 0.10 per pixel per day. So an 88x31 tag (2728 pixels) would cost 272.80 per day."
> A: You can chase the purple squirrel. He is animated against a purple background. Click on him to win. The game restarts immediately after each win, only the squirrel knows.
That poor squirrel. All those losses, and no one to share them with?
There should be a purple countdown, and if the squirrel makes it to the end of the time limit without being caught/clicked on, the squirrel wins. Then the timer resets and a new game starts. Games that are impossible for one party to win are no fun.
Note that (b) is - intentionally - quite difficult to prove, and is designed to prevent overtly bad-faith cyber-squatting without allowing "he who came late to the game but has more money wins" type of reverse-hijacking.
Since "petal" is a common word that you chose to use, but did not invent or have worldwide common recognition with, you very likely won't have much of a chance of using the dispute resolution process to obtain petal.com.
Interesting article about the early days of domain ownership disputes here:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawye...
Anyway, he had a catch-all email account for the domain, an sometimes interesting stuff would arrive. One day he showed me an email he had just received from a major investment firm that read more or less like this:
> Hey Jane, what's up?
> So I need to transfer those $50M we talked about over the phone the other day, just wanted to confirm the account. It's 123456789, right? If not, do send me the account number. Thanks!
Of course he didn't even reply, but he said these things happened pretty often.
An email trying to pass as a normal workplace email.
It was years ago but IIRC, there were actual names and the email was clearly between two people who knew each other personally, contained phone numbers, etc. Also, it wasn't in English, so it wasn't some automated Nigerian scam or something like that for sure.
And if someone went through the trouble of obtaining so much intel (names, phones, company titles, bank branches, etc) - makes no sense they would then get the email wrong.
Also, at most the person sending the email would gain is some business bank account number, that's probably semi public knowledge anyway, without any authentication-enabling information.
This stuff is done by fax in my country to this very day, I'm not surprised at all that such an unencrypted mail was sent.
> A: If you consult with someone well versed in trademark law, they will tell you that you can't have an exclusive trademark on a common word or name. My husband and I successfully defended ourselves against an attempted domain takeover in 2006; see WIPO Case D2006-0655 for more information.
Well, it depends on the jurisdiction. In France, in the infamous "Milka" case, the opposite happened: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods (french)
As a result the judges ruled that she was piggybacking on the established brand.
If her design was say green instead of purple, she would likely have won the trial.
In Germany, a lawyer named Dr. Andreas Shell lost a five-year legal dispute against the petrol multinational and had to hand over "shell.de" in 2001. Amazingly, in 1996 Shell actually was offered the domain at cost, but showed no interest.
Source, German only I am afraid: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/rechtsstreit-shell-gegen-...
Based on their IP, they are hosted on DigitalOcean where even the cheapest plan provides 1TB of transfer per month, so bandwidth is not an issue.
Some interesting excerpts:
> vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL
I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the complaint. They even move on from "unlikely" to "fact" when accusing the owners of gail.com that they were acting in bad faith:
> Furthermore, because the Respondent registered the domain name exactly when the Complainant increased its sales of GAIL products to the United States, this should be identified as an abusive practice. Lastly, the Respondent knew about the existence of the Complainant and of its GAIL trademark and nevertheless proceeded with the registration of the domain name.
The owners of gail made a counter-claim:
> (d) Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
> The Respondent alleges that the Complainant is using the Policy in bad faith for reverse domain name hijacking.
The arbiters ended up deciding that the owners of gail.com had a "legitimate interest" in operating the domain name, so they didn't comment on GAIL's accusation of bad faith.
(As someone who really detests IP law in its various forms, I've always found it unnerving that domain names can be seized simply based on whether a third party thinks your use is "legitimate" or not.)
The best part is that the first result for "GAIL" isn't even this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIL
Advertisers will eventually strangle capitalism by increasing the irrationality of market actors until the basic mechanism of effective capital allocation breaks down.
Some would argue we're toeing or slightly across that line.
The late 90's/2000's was when the bad "sue for everything" habit came from over the pond and the thousands of extra lawyers (trained by our desire for more people to go to university) suddenly needed to find work. Also this is when driving insurance premiums skyrocketed because suddenly everyone was claiming for whiplash because it was "free money" that we all have to collectively pay back. Some things that appear free are not really free, I guess that's my point.
However check out what the owners say about it:
> Q: Are you interested in monetizing gail.com?
> A: No, but thanks for asking.
> Q: Don't you know that you could throw some ads up and make money?
> A: Yes, I know, thank you. For those who feel they need more advertising in their life, please have a look at our swanky Electronic Frontier Foundation ad below.
Microsoft vs a High School Kid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
Google fails to win dispute for oogle.com: http://blog.dnattorney.com/2012/07/google-loses-ooglecom-dom...
Julia Roberts gets control of her namesake domain, but Bruce Springsteen does not: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bruce.html
It just takes over your browser and makes it impossible to close without killing the PID.
I get why it's appealing on a "little guy against big nameless corporation" level, but honestly, it's like an annoying kid who wants attention.
It's not like gail.com or nissan.com are providing any content that 99.999999999% would find remotely interesting or useful, I imagine most are just annoyed to accidentally stumble on some barely-coherent anti-capitalist rambling.
But I get it. It's cool to be a rebel.
My domain doesn't have any content most people would find remotely interesting or useful. If a large corporation names a product similarly to my domain, should I feel pressured into changing?
Cue Office Space Michael Bolton quote.
They're easily leaving over US$ 500 a day on the table, for many years. Even if you hate advertising, take the money and donate to some charity. There are many who can use that kind of funds.
Wasteful.
It's terrible, all these people with houses in prominent traffic locations and people driving vehicles in high density urban environments, who refuse to place advertising all over their property. So much money being left on the table - even at low ad rates - they could be helping the less fortunate with those billions of collective ad dollars.
All those years ago a company paid me £15k to build them a website which they could update themselves.
So I turned WWWBoard into a kind of blog/publishing system for them and they loved it. Cha-ching! :)
gail.com don't currently accept email for @gmail.com:
$ host -t mx gail.com
gail.com mail is handled by 10 mail.protonmail.ch.
$ nc -w1 mail.protonmail.ch 25
220 mail1i.protonmail.ch ESMTP Postfix
HELO test.com
250 mail1i.protonmail.ch
mail from:<test@test.com>
250 2.1.0 Ok
rcpt to:<test@gmail.com>
554 5.7.1 <test@gmail.com>: Relay access denied
421 4.7.0 mail1i.protonmail.ch Error: too many errorsOr are you talking about a typo in the routing config itself?
You may think I'm joking, but think back to that "some random blog post showed up as the first Google result for 'Facebook'" incident and you'll get what I mean.
"<font size="+1" face="ARIAL,HELVETICA">"
There are people starving in this world and I'm gonna go ahead keep my famous page that gets loads of hits just to prove that I don't have to sell it or put ads on it. Fuck you, by us!