Talk:Reverse domain hijacking

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Reference section here says, "Large sections of this article are taken from http://www.aplegal.com with permission from the firm." Anyone thinks we could do better? ;-) If there's a group here interested in rewriting, I'm in =) Sherdor 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Case[edit]

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0169.htm -- An earlier decision of Reverse Domain Hijacking than the cases listed in this article, and as far as I can tell, the earliest finding... --Grandmasterkush 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue[edit]

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 23

I have reposted the article in the temporary capacity. The article on the subject has received permission by the copyright owners to be placed here. Aardvark31 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will need verification of that in order to publish material from that copyrighted source. I have placed a note on your page explaining how to verify. Please do not restore this material pending verification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-referenced, informative on its subject matter, and provides permission to be used here. As such, claims to the contrary are unfounded.Aardvark31 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email from the copyright holder for the Web site and its contents dated March 3, 2009 stating that license is granted for public posting so long as attribution is made. Is this sufficient? Thanks for your diligence. Aardvark31 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, if the license is specific in noting that material may be reused commercially and modified. Please forward this to the Communications Committee at "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". You should include a direct link to the source and also clearly note the name of the Wikipedia article. If there are problems, the member of the Communications Committee who addresses your e-mail should let you know what additional information is necessary. If it is sufficient, he or she should make a note at the top of this talk page indicating as much and then restore the material blanked. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email has been forwarded. Thanks! Aardvark31 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it has now been more than seven days and the OTRS ticket has not been supplied, I am restoring to the last verifiably clean. If there were problems with your permission, you should have been notified by a member of the communications committee in response to your e-mail. If you have heard nothing, perhaps your original correspondence was lost. Please consider resending that. If permission is verified through OTRS, then the material can be restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2009 Modifications[edit]

The major revisions to this entry by Neelien412 were prepared as part of a graded project in my Cyberspace Law course. Please be kind to the newcomer. Ericgoldman (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph[edit]

As of 23 Dec 2022, the first paragraph is written from a biased perspective that seeks to excuse reverse domain name hijacking rather than explain the concept. It does not accurately summarize the practice. Really, only the second part of the last sentence accurately summarize the concept as "a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to". Much of the introductory paragraph is contradicted by the current "UDRP restrictions on reverse domain name hijacking" section, for instance, which attests to a possible attempt to vandalize the article in favor of trademark owner interests. See also, e.g., https://icannwiki.org/Reverse_Domain_Name_Hijacking. Without having the time to read all the cited sources, the following are some possible minor edits that would make the article more neutral:

Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting or commonly abbreviated as 'RDNH'), occurs where a trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making bad faith cybersquatting claims against a domain name’s "cybersquatter" owner.[1? see also https://icannwiki.org/Reverse_Domain_Name_Hijacking] This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action and associated costs, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals.[2] Reverse domain name hijacking is an abuse of legal proceedings by trademark owners who suspect that registrants will settle their cases rather than litigate.[6?] Such lawsuits may thus be a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to.[7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.154 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]