@mvfs I've actually studied squatting cases before, they used to be a lot more common when the internet was new. Fan sites often do well in court, or better than redirects/blank/useless sites anyway, and have won before. You could make a hate site as well, as long as you are not obviously trying to hurt EA's business, or how the court puts it, have the site "in bad faith." It would need to offer actual, valid criticism about the game, or parody it (the main article actually says this is what the site was doing at first, but then he made the mistake of changing it to a redirect), then I'd doubt Activision would be able to get it back.
@mingolo i think your wrong about that. the domain name is ea's property because its got nothing but their product's name on it
How to keep a domain name that is trademarked by a big corporation: 1. Make a fan site that has to do with the product or 2. Make a hate site that has to do with the product Anything else, including the old "I'm going to make the site redirect to your main competitor" will likely lose in court because you're not really using the domain name, just squatting on it. If the guy had made a hate site bashing MW3 with a big link taking ppl to the BF3 site, he would have probably won, people have before like that.
TUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURTLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @02050muh I kinda like the cover, however, the title is annoying me. I mean, MW3? Was Infinity Ward too lazy to add on odern and arfare? :lol:
Can we stop trying to compare BF and CoD they are to different styles of games CoD is arcadey and BF is more strategic just buy whatever game you want or both and be a gamer
Who doesn't like turtles? Tried the Bloodrayne trial. The PS3 can keep it. And good job Activision for bringing the strong arm of the law down on a guy that rightfully owed that domain name. It's good to know that the little guy still takes it up the @%# from the big corporate guy. (That's sarcasm, by the way.) Oh, and good job as usual Johnny.