When google.com was available to be bought after a clerical error, did they lose their right to own it?
<p>When the domain google.com became available to be bought after a clerical error, it was bought by a man for $12 (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34504319">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34504319</a>).</p>

<p>I'm curious to know, because Google allowed their ownership of the domain to expire, why do they still have the rights to it even when it was bought by another individual. I'm aware it could have been disputed at court due to trademark infringement etc. but why were they able to refund the transaction and reclaim the domain without going through that process.</p>

<p>Would the individual who bought the domain be able to claim any right to it at all after he paid for it?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I'm curious to know, because Google allowed their ownership of the domain to expire, why do they still have the rights to it even when it was bought by another individual.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You're making an incorrect assumption here.</p>

<p>The domain was never allowed to expire. An error in Google's domain registration interface allowed him to make an order for the domain. The domain was never actually purchased, but <em>the act of ordering the domain</em> gave Mr. Ved access to the domain in Google's Webmaster Tools.</p>

<p>As the domain was never actually available for purchase, Mr. Ved had no rights to it. (The domain is not even registered through Google's domain registration interface; it's under a completely separate company, MarkMonitor, that specializes in high-value domains.)</p>

<p>He bought it through Google Domains.</p>

<p>From the <a href="http://domains.google.com/tos">Name Registration Agreement</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Registration Acceptance. Google may accept or <strong>reject</strong> Registrant’s
  application for registration or renewal for any reason <strong>at its sole
  discretion</strong>, including, rejection due to a prohibited, improper,
  unavailable, infringing or otherwise questionable domain name. Google
  is not liable or responsible for any third party’s errors, omissions
  or other actions arising out of or related to Registrant’s domain name
  application, registration, or renewal, including any Registry Operator
  administrator’s failure to register or renew a domain name.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Google has not commented publicly but presumably they had some alert set up which sprung them to action and they cancelled. Arguably, if the registration had been with a different registration agent, Google would not have had the power to reverse the transaction and would have needed to use the dispute process. Keep in mind though, this thing is being called a bug, it's not like Google let the registration expire and it got snapped up.</p>

<p>EDIT TO ADD:</p>

<p>The <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en">Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy</a> provides the rules for resolving these disputes. Somewhat obvious these days is that trademark owners have certain rights over domains which are their trademark or which are similar to their mark. However, <strong>the analysis does not stop at the existence of a bona fide trademark</strong>. The use to which the domain is put matters.Specific to the present facts:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A finding of the following <strong>shall demonstrate</strong> <strong>(SHALL DEMONSTRATE)</strong> your rights or <strong>legitimate
  interests</strong> to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):</p>
  
  <p>(4)(c)(iii) you <strong>are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
  domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert
  consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The reference to (4)(c) is referring to the section where we read that "<strong>complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present</strong>" -- <strong>EACH OF THESE THREE:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
  trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and</p>
  
  <p>(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
  domain name; and</p>
  
  <p>(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
  faith.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>The complainant FAILS THIS TEST if the registrar shows "legitimate noncommercial or fair use."</strong> <strong>(Remember, this is from the SHALL DEMONSTRATE part, <em>supra</em>)</strong></p>

<p>In other words, there is a dispute process which must be followed. Just because someone registers Google does not mean that Google automatically gets it back.</p>

<p>It is likely this would have been handled under the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy</a>, which provides that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We may [...] cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(See jqning's answer)</p>
<p>But even if Google were not the registrar:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not <strong>infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party;</strong> (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If someone (Google) submits a complaint, they have to prove these elements:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a <strong>trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights</strong>; and</p>
<p>(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and</p>
<p>(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The definition of &quot;bad faith&quot; is rather lengthy, but includes things like trying to sell the domain for more than you paid for it, preventing the owner of a trademark from having the corresponding domain, and diverting traffic to your own website for commercial gain.</p>
<p>Given this situation, I find it unlikely this individual would have been able to keep the domain without hosting a non-commercial website out of pocket at considerable expense due to the large amount of traffic it would get, which strikes me as both improbable and unsustainable.</p>

internet trademark domain-name