Stitch in Haste makes the valid point that renewing a domain name is a simple matter and the failure to do so in a timely way is an easily avoidable mistake. All of that is certainly true. But why create traps for the unwary when doing so creates no obvious benefits for society? If there are valid ways to apply standard common law principles to prevent domain name hijacking, then why not do so?

About eighteen months ago, when I decided to leave Blogger, the first thing I did was register the domain name http://www.kipesquire.com. Then, when I settled on a new blogging service (Powerblogs), I arranged f…

Consider as an analogy the policy justifications for forbidding blackmail, which on its face looks like a mutually beneficial, voluntary transaction with no third party victims. The theory for forbidding it is that we don’t want to encourage people to expend resources to find out sensitive information that could later be the basis for a blackmail transaction. Blackmail entails search and transaction costs and no offsetting benefits (the wealth transfer from the victim to the blackmailer produces no net welfare benefit). So too with domain name hijacking. It costs something to take over someone else’s name, and then to negotiate to sell it back. But the wealth transfer associated with the transaction is not welfare enhancing. It’s just a pure transfer, and it comes at a cost that society would be better off not to expend.

As for the tort, IWPA clearly exempts mere competition. It also requires intent to harm via improper conduct. Legally and legitimately buying an abandoned website in order to make a buck is hardly “improper.”