I registered a foreign domain 7 years ago. The domain name carries the brand of a local newspaper. Basically it's a small to medium foreign newspaper who themselves registered the .com, I had registered the country specific extension which was still available at that point.
Initially I had some plans with it but gave up development years ago and simple set a redirect which redirects users to the newspapers' .com site. This has been like that for years.
The newspaper's ad agency recently got in touch with me about obtaining the domain.
My question is this:
When I check the stats of the domain, I see that it has some existing traffic to it. Is it fair that I charge the agency the price of an existing traffic domain opposed to a non-traffic domain although the existing traffic is most likely coming from users who type in the country specific extension (the one I own) opposed to the .com extension?
Another question I have is in regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting
"The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price."
Obviously, when you are in the business of buying and selling domain names, you have to inflate the price in order to profit. I also recall trading non-traffic domains in the $XXX area while only having spent $X amount on the domain.
So what level of inflated price is wikipedia talking about?
In my case, I think it's a price lower than a lawsuit.
If you purchased a name where an international trademark is held and your domain could be mistaken for one of theirs you should not be charging them anything to get it back. When you buy a domain you should do background research to ensure the name does not conflict and it is your responsibility to give up the domain to them, unfortunately if you try to charge them money to get the domain back they could sue you for trademark infringement. Basically just negociate with them the transfer (perhaps ask nicely if they will recoop your costs for the domain since you redirected it to their website anyway).
As for your question on price inflation, basically if the cost of buying the domain from the seller would be anything more than the cost of purchasing it through a registrar (as if it had never been registered), it is inflated.
Perhaps not but disputes can be made that if you are found with a domain baring the likness of a registered brand (which could be interpreted as buying a domain of another business's brand) it could be seen as an infringement of ICANN's (or your international registrars policy) and they could technically seize your domain from under you or take action against you if you do not hand it over for what could be seen as cybersquatting (Which in some countries is a criminal act now).
The process you are referring to takes forever and chances that this happens are extremely unlikely. Not to mention the cost involved with hiring an IP lawyer etc. There are 1000s of people registering and selling type-o's and you hardly see any of these domains seized.
Actually domain disputes happen all the time without the involvement of high price lawyers, its the registrar that ultimately makes the decision, though personally I think its morally wrong to sell a business the rights to their own identity but whatever.
trademark infringement does not apply here. There is nothing being infringed.
If there's no trademark, anyway. And you can ask Microsoft or Verizon for few
of their cases they filed against alleged cybersquatters and typosquatters.
Verizon is especially rather devious, though. While they don't necessarily have
all of the typo domains seized, they do ensure whoever's doing it pays them a
(big?) cut of whatever revenue they manage to scringe.
Anyway, you can actually charge whatever you want to the newspaper. But if
they're like certain trademark holders, they could use that against you also.
Whether that qualifies as "cybersquatting" or not, though, depends on all and
any applicable laws or rules under that domain extension.