Microsoft Files Dispute Against Current Owner of

Microsoft might have one of the most talked-about products at the moment with the Xbox One, but would you believe it doesn't own the rights to the most obvious domain name to accompany it? Domain squatting is a real issue for companies about to launch a new product. If they register a domain before the official launch, people can find that and subsequently ruin the company's surprise. There's a fine-line here, to be sure.

This particular case is different, however; the domain name wasn't registered just the other day. Instead, a UK resident registered the name in December of 2011, long before Microsoft itself even likely had a definitive name for its upcoming console. So, what can a company do in this instance? File a dispute with the National Arbitration Forum, an ICANN-approved organization that specializes in dealing with these sorts of matters.

At the moment, isn't being used for anything, so it's in effect a squat. This could work towards Microsoft's favor, since the registrant likely registered the domain only in hopes of it becoming useful to Microsoft down the road. Further, the company can also use the defense that the domain name is going to be confusing to consumers - and that seems like a good argument. I'm sure the number of people who've already tried to go to has been rather high.

Given the factors that the National Arbitration Forum looks at, Microsoft's case here looks good. So, we'll see if it does manage to gain access to this prized domain, or if it's going to have to resort to shelling out some cash in order to snatch it from the current owner's grasp.

Via:  Kotaku
inspector one year ago

lmfao, for some reason this made me want to go to looks like Microsoft didn't want to take the chance xD.

Kidbest100 one year ago

I agree with Microsoft on this one. If it is a squat, and they have legitimate reasons to want it, like they do, then they should have it.

HOWEVER, if that person who already owns the domain name is using it themselves already, I don't think that Microsoft should be able to take it without first paying for it, or somehow attaining it from the owner in a proper manner that doesn't spark legal battles.

Dave_HH one year ago

Plain and simple, whoever owns the domain owns it. Web property is web property, just like physical property. If MS wants it, they better be required to pay for it and frankly, the owners shouldn't even have to sell.

Super Dave one year ago

[quote user="Dave_HH"]Plain and simple, whoever owns the domain owns it.[/quote]

I agree, and I would be surprised if MS prevails. Remember the Dallas Cowboys' website debacle? The Dallas Cowboys wanted the domain name, but it is now a gay dating site. If the Cowboys thought they could have wrested control of that domain, I'm sure they would have done it by now.

RWilliams one year ago

Both that and this scenario are quite different. "Cowboys" could represent a billion different things; actual cowboys, a sports team, a song title, a movie title and et cetera. "Xbox One" on the other hand means just one thing... this console. People won't get confused about when it could represent virtually a hundred things. Anyone going to on the other hand expect it to be about the console of the same name.

That said, I tend to disagree with Dave on this one. If was a working site, and not just an obvious squat, I'd feel different. To me, this is like digital blackmail, as Inspector also suggested.

Kentokae one year ago

If they are not using it then they do not need it and thus wasting space

inspector one year ago

I don't agree with that Dave, squatting domains is by no means something to praise. Its kinda like blackmailing. Like Kidbest said, if they have a legit use for the domain then yes Microsoft should pay if the owner wants to sell it.

JeremiahCarter one year ago

i know lets name it xbox 3 know like it actually is lol

Kentokae one year ago

Actually they should name it XBoX SeVeN why Becasue:

Console #01 MSX (1983)

Console #02 MSX 2 (1986)

Console #03 MSX 2+ (1988)

Console #04 MSX turbo R (1990).

Console #05 XBox (2001)

Console #06 XBoX (2005)

Console #07 XBoX One (2013-2014)

Console #08 XBoX Two (

Console #09 XBox ?????????? (Underpants Gnome)

Console #10 XBoX Profit

JordanScottCarter one year ago

X Bone. Done. That is all.

JEngel one year ago

Time for Microsoft to pay up.

Manduh one year ago

All you people saying it's wrong to 'squat' websites are getting annoying. That domain did not belong to anyone before he got it, it is nothing like 'squatting' houses. The person paid and registered the domain first and should be left alone. Microsoft should think of another domain name.

Did he get the .com because he wants to make some money? We don't know, but most likely. How is that any different than someone buying up a ton of hockey play off tickets so he can sell them later for triple the cost. Or someone scooping up the remaining KISS concert tickets to be able to sell them at triple?? If you pay for something, that something becomes YOURS and you should be allowed to do what you want with it after, use it, sell it,sit on it, park it, etc.

I honestly think ACPA is a joke and if that law was to try to pass today it would't. It's unfortunate in 1999 people weren't as aware of what their governments were up to.

RWilliams one year ago

"How is that any different than someone buying up a ton of hockey play off tickets so he can sell them later for triple the cost."

It's no different at all. Are you in favor of that sort of activity?

Manduh one year ago

[quote user="RWilliams"]

"How is that any different than someone buying up a ton of hockey play off tickets so he can sell them later for triple the cost."

It's no different at all. Are you in favor of that sort of activity?


Of course not, but people do it and I don't see why there is an issue with it. If I buy a collectible or a car knowing it will be worth something more someday, then sell it when it is, that is THE SAME THING. Same with the property comment above. It doesn't matter how much someone paid for the item ($3 or $300k), it is theirs when they pay for it, they should be able to choose what they want to do with it.  

With the issue of or .net... how could he have possibly known Microsoft was going to choose that name almost a year and a half before they released the name to the public, considering all the rumors around the net pointed to Xbox 720?  Unless they prove he knew and did it deliberately or if he starts to use the site fraudulently (bad faith), they should leave him alone or just buy it from him. Microsoft is a smart company I'm sure they knew this was already a registered domain but said, "Oh well we can just take it from him" because that's what rich corporations do. 

Johnny3D one year ago

I don't see this as any different than buying land in an area you hope one day will be developed. So you buy the land, later, someone decides they want to develop that particular stretch of land and buys the land from you.

It shouldn't be that the person who wants to develop that land could just file some paperwork and take the land from you just because they want to. They should have to purchase that land from the owner.

In this case, the person owns ... if Microsoft wants it, they should just buy it. Especially considering that Microsoft's owner is the RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD... I think they can afford to dish out some money to buy a URL they want.

RWilliams one year ago

Well, let's be honest... land is quite a bit more expensive than domain names. Domain names can be had for $3 a pop sometimes (new registrations), so people can snatch them up en masse with little risk.

I've been affected by domain squatting in the past so it's a bit of a sore spot, I guess.

realneil one year ago

They should rename it to the "Frog-Box" and be done with it.

They should also have to buy what someone else already owns.

ricofrost one year ago

I thought I saw somewhere that by law if the person taking the domain doesn't have any devices or anything in relations to that name then they are forced to had it over.

Sevags one year ago

I agree with Dave, the owner is the owner and even if it's a squat MS should have to pay and like you said only if the seller wants to sell. It's no different than real estate companies buying plots of land that they feel might be needed later for building projects in order to flip it for more money. The fact that he registered if long before the system was ever named just means he made a great business in segment decision when he thought of the domain. It didn't even have to be MS who was interred it could have been a gaming review site that was interested, an online game store, or any number of other businesses.

MS doesn't own or either, the later of which is on sale for $48k.

Post a Comment
or Register to comment