Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

U.S. Cybersquatting Law Goes Global 151

Posted by timothy from the of-the-people-by-the-people dept.
typecast writes: "Better bone up on Bulgarian trademark law before you register your next domain name. A U.S. federal court has ruled that laws protecting trademarks in foreign countries apply under the American Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. (Note to the U.S. registrants of Quartz.com: watch out!)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Cybersquatting Law Goes Global More

U.S. Cybersquatting Law Goes Global

Comments Filter:

  • Not as evil as the article states. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:05PM (#3101460) Homepage
    Sorry, but if you register some domains and then hope to extort thousands out of it, you deserve to have it taken from you. I know that the law can and will be twisted by lawyers (remember all lawyers are evil scumbags, they will screw you for their own gain at every chance they get.. no, I'm not biased). The implications of this are designed for good intentions... What if a US moron was trying to extort cash out of a poor company in the country that was formerly known as the USSR for his domain name? Granted anyone with 1/3'd of a brain can come up with a workable replacement..
    • Sorry, but if you register some domains and then hope to extort thousands out of it, you deserve to have it taken from you.

      Translation: You can be a company afraid of the Internet and be slow to adjust to market market pressures. When you finally open your eyes and see that others have taken advantage of your lethargy in hopes of monetary gain, you need not fret -- just taken them to court.

      After all, we now know that successful corporations are not allowed to fail. In times of trouble, entire industries will recieve multi-billion dollar bailouts. Laws and courts will favor successful companes (like anti-cybersquatting laws) and in the rare cases that a corporation does fail, Congress will hold dozens of hearings to find out why and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

      Existing corporations and existing power-structures are not allow to fail or be challenged.
      • Translation: You can be a company afraid of the Internet and be slow to adjust to market market pressures. When you finally open your eyes and see that others have taken advantage of your lethargy in hopes of monetary gain, you need not fret -- just taken them to court.

        So if I invent a new medium I should be able to own the reprensentation of Pepsi?

        That's what we are talking about. By registering say "pepsi.com" before the Pepsi company does your infringing on their right to the trademark and proper representation.

        Note that I am totally against disallowing registrations like "pepsisucks.com", etc. Just the name itself should be the property of the inventor. Otherwise each time a new medium is invented they could lose represenation.

        Tom
        • But what if you are a small electronics manufacturer with the name Pepsi, or what if your family name is Pepsi (I know, families don't need .coms!)? This just ensures that the company with the most money available for litugation wins the name, even though both companies have a fair right to the domain name.
          • Yeah but its first come first serve.

            Why not use [in this example] "pepsielectronics.com" or "pepsie.com".

            Same goes for trademarks on anything else. You can't sell "Pepsi cola" in the states or Canada because Pepsi owns the name,

            See I am against companies registering every possible alternation of the name under the sun.
            • Ah, but what if Pepsi Electronics beats Pepsi Cola to the pepsi.com domain. That is what I was referring to. If this happens, Pepsi Cola takes domain from Pepsi Electronics.

              The fact that more people associate Pepsi with a cola doesn't mean that PepsiCo gets exclusive rights to refer to itself as "Pepsi".

              If Pepsi Electronics registers pepsi.com, PepsiCo should have no right to sieze it. They exist in different markets, so they can have the same name. Big corporations should not be able to take domains from smaller ones just because they are bigger. If they are late to the game, then TS. They have more to offer the small company in exchange for the domain, and they should buy it instead of siezing it.

              I do agree that any alterations (pepsisucks.com, pepssi.com, etc) should be allowed, though...
          • As I recall, Sun sued everyone and their brother that had the phrase "Java" in their domain name. Including a company called "Javanco" (I think it made electronics, but it's been a while.

            The point is the owner's name was "Javan".

        • So if I invent a new medium I should be able to own the reprensentation of Pepsi?

          Yes! Or do you think the fact that one company's stringing together of a few characters to represent a specific product should put a strangle hold on your new medium and the ability of everyone else to string together the same (or similar) characters to represent something else?

          A not-too-unlikely example is simple machine naming schemes. These could even be named after soft drinks (dew.example.com, coke.example.com, pepsi.example.com, etc.). I'm sorry, but I don't think any company that might possibly have a trademark on some specific use of a character string should get to tell me what I can and can't call things in my domain.

          • You missed my point. I was saying using a trademark on a new medium is still trademark infringement. Note that "any use of the name whatsoever is wrong".

            So you might invent "PepsiLotsa" which would be new. But simply just using "Pepsi" is wrong since you don't own the name.

            The idea stems back to fair play. If anyone could use a name then we'd all drive Fords, drink Pepsi and use Intel based computers. Even though none of the mentioned products were made by the original inventors.

            You will not be able to trust anything anymore since the name holds no reputation.

            On the other hand if you name is "BigFakeIntel" then clearly a consumer will tell the difference between that and the real thing. If you just use "Intel" then its muddy.

            Tom
            • But we're not talking about products, we're talking about names in a network... I usually feel some mental pain at the thought of trademark law applied to names that do not mark a product nor are used in any form of trade (non commercial sites). There's something wrong with the laws or their interpretation, if "trademarks" cover everything else but trade, too.
              • There is a strong difference between

                pepsi@joeblow.com and pepsi.com

                People will understand the former to be non-official and the latter to be official.

                Similarly there is a difference between writing a book called "The effects of Pepsi on the human stomach." and "Pepsi".

                Its what people will reasonably understand your name to represent. If a reasonable person will think you're representing the owner then thats bad.

                The definition of "reasonable" is what is in question.

                Tom
      • But in this case, it wasn't about a company at all. It was a very old city claiming the rights to its quite unique name. In my opinion that claim carries more moral weight than the commercial interests of a some possibly short-ived company.
      • Existing corporations and existing power-structures are not allow to fail or be challenged.

        This is clearly not true. Let's take a recent example: Enron [enron.com] which lobbied the government for a bail-out and other protections but didn't receive them.

        Of course sometimes it does happen, for example Long term capital management [investmentreview.com] whose bailout (IMHO) stunk to high heaven. But clearly there is not some conspiracy to ensure that all failing corporations are protected in the way you seem to be suggesting.

        You also say: in the rare cases that a corporation does fail, Congress will hold dozens of hearings to find out why and make sure that it doesn't happen again.. Well given the consequences to the employees of Enron, not to mention the tax payers of California and other states that Enron stiffed, not to mention the shareholders whose millions are now worthless, perhaps it would be a very good thing if Congress ensured that the corporate malpractices that caused Enron to fail were curtailed...
        • "This is clearly not true. Let's take a recent example: Enron [enron.com] which lobbied the government for a bail-out and other protections but didn't receive them."

          Why do people insist on hanging on to their delusions like this.

          Look just because GW stabbed his buddy in the back when the enron empire was in the process of collapsing that does not mean GW and his party did not help enron for years before that. Even right up to the moment of collapse enron execs had the private phone numbers of GW, Cheney, and top level officials. That access is worth a lot of money and certainly you and I don't have it. Also consider that for years enron had the texas legislature and the governorship in their pocket. Once Bush got into office he passed numerous laws which made enron hundreds of millions of dollars.

          In the end as the house of cards was falling down GW stabbed his long term friend in the back to save his butt. One imagines Ken Lay uttering "e tu double u" as he collapses down. At one point dubya even denied they were friends, with friends like that well you know the rest.

          • Why do people insist on hanging on to their delusions like this.

            Look just because GW stabbed his buddy in the back when the enron empire was in the process of collapsing that does not mean GW and his party did not help enron for years before that.

            etc.

            None of which contradicts my post. I merely noted that the original poster had said: "After all, we now know that successful corporations are not allowed to fail." and that clearly wasn't true because Enron had been allowed to fail.

            I never claimed that Enron did or did not receive favorable treatment from Bush or anyone else.

            Try actually reading the post before you flame it, especially if you are going to start getting all tetchy about it and throw around emotive terms like "delusions".
            • "None of which contradicts my post."

              I think that it indeed contradicts your post. Perhaps it clarifies your post. I'll put it this way.

              Enron fell despite the fact that the govt tried their damned best to keep it propped up. They had friends in high places, those friends passed laws to make more money for enron, enron fell anyways. I guess when the top brass is out to rip off everybody not even a exteremely helpful govt can prevent failure.
              • Enron fell despite the fact that the govt tried their damned best to keep it propped up

                No [washingtonpost.com] they [forbes.com] didn't [chron.com].

                You can say the opposite until you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it true. The Bush government could have done a great deal more to help Enron but chose not to. That doesn't mean they didn't help them at all, clearly they [citizen.org] did [guardian.co.uk] but the government clearly refused to bail out Enron. The government has bailed out companies in as much or worse trouble than Enron was in, such as LTCM previously mentioned. They chose not to do that for Enron.

                I very much doubt Kenneth lay would agree with your assesment that he had "an extremely helpful government".
                • Well that's funny all of your links actually vindicate my post. That being.

                  1) for years the govt helped out enron.
                  2) In the end bush backstabbed his friend and did not help him during the collapse of enron.
                  3) Even during the end Enron had access to the highest levels of govt that you and I don't.

                  None of your posts indicate anything about how much the state of texas helped enron when dubya was the pres though.

                  Kenneth Lay made an obcene amount of money with thelp of the govt. If he is not grateful then he deserved to be stabbed in the back. I would guess that he will still keep his jets and mansions though so I don't think anybody will take his whining seriously.

  • wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    where did freedom go again? isn't this almost like killing capitalism? i have three domains right now, and i'm not ready to launch sites for two of them. does that mean someone with a company name of the same type can just take it?

    • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Huh?

      What do you mean? That you should be able to sit on the names even though you cannot provide the service, yet? That way you're hindering the other company's right to make profit with the address. That's capitalism in action!

    • Yes, dammit. It should, at least. Anyone who's spent any time looking for a domain name quickly finds that while almost everything is taken, 99% of those registered names have no sites behind them. People should be given a week or a month to put something meaningful behind it, or lose it to the next customer.

      • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Webere ( 161002 )
        99% of those registered names have no sites behind them. People should be given a week or a month to put something meaningful behind it, or lose it to the next customer.

        you know, there are other things you can do with a domain that don't involve having a web site...
        • Am I being thick-headed here? Besides forwarding to a working doman (ala www.carbon.com [carbon.com]), what else can you do? Besides, of course, squat.
          • Everything from email to any kind of server (IRC, streaming audio or video, etc, etc).
          • there are plenty of people out there who use domains to represent themselves through email only... they don't particularily need to have a website to go along with it...

            lc
          • http isn't the only protocol in use on networks, dumbass.
            • Hey, thanks! I didn't know I was a dumbass. And you took 2 minutes out of your busy schedule to tell me--I'm touched.
          • email, streaming... of course; wasn't thinking. Anyhoo, the spirit (if not the letter) of my original post stands: If a domain name isn't being put to use, it should be up for grabs.

  • Foreign Law coming to US (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aliebrah ( 135162 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:10PM (#3101486) Homepage
    Shouldn't the correct title of the article be something like "Spanish Law coming to US?". This is most definitely not a case of US law going overseas.

    Remember, it might be a shock to some people but to whole world does not revolve around the USA.

  • Well, it is an EU country (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OptimizedPrime ( 558992 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:10PM (#3101489)
    It is an EU country, so it's less surprising. While I don't like the laws, we have been making a lot of laws and treaties with other countries, and the EU in paticular that are designed to protect US patents, copyrights and trademarks. Overall, its the result of Microsoft and the others trying to inflict their copyright laws, EULA's and such on the global market, only to have the global laws come back home to us. As a side note, IANAL, but I believe British copyright and trademark claims have always been recognized in the United States, and this is basically an extension to other countries. I think the base law is flawed, as are the laws that allow big corporations to take away valid websites from individuals or small companies, but the extension into the greater world doesn't seem that surprising to me.
    • Bulgaria is an European country, sure, but it's not a member of the EU yet.
    • Oh, it is a EU country, is it? It is not far removed from the EU geographically speaking, but using this criterion, say Colombia or Honduras would be US States :-) Geography is not the same as politics, see?

      I - and most citizens of this planet - wish that people (especially US) would just wake up to the fact that things are completely different from what can be learned from satellite TV. And hopefully the US will realise that they do not cover most of the Earth's landmass!
      • "Lawyers who squared off in a trademark dispute between the operators of a tourism portal and Barcelona, Spain, disagree on whether a U.S. District Court judge made the right call this month when he awarded the Internet address Barcelona.com to the city. But they agree that the judge broke new ground in U.S. anti-cybersquatting law."

        Some Americans can even read an article, and know little trivia like the fact that Spain is an EU country.

        Yah, I know - redundant.
    • And in fact, someone here locally is suing (a music conductor) because the new copyright laws, though intended to protect US artists, create a HUGE problem, since they apply the same protection to foreign artists. The example they used was that it would have cost the symphony at least $5K to acquire the right to perform "Peter and the Wolf," a cost that the symphony is not about to forego. The offshoot of this is that people will either start shelling out a hell of a lot more to hear works from foreign artists, or they'll be listening to the same stuff over and over again.

      It's nice to know that we have such enlightened legislators.
  • Quartz.com doesn't need to watch out, Quartz is a word in the dictionary.

    This is a different area of law.. remember sting.com? I think he ended up coughing up the cash for that one.

  • right thing (tm) (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sapone ( 152094 )
    I think the judge did the right thing in this case, the term Barcelona is commonly understood to refer to the Spanish city of Barcelona. But this shouldn't be based on possession of a "trademark"... there's really no trade involved. It's the name of a large city, this fact should supersede registered rademarks anyway... "culture supersedes commerce" would be a nice rule :-).

  • Had to expect this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crc32 ( 133399 ) <{moc.23crc} {ta} {niloc}> on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:23PM (#3101545) Homepage
    After all, the US is a member of WIPO, and as such, is somewhat required to engage in these IP-law "harmonization" practices. Other countries will also be doing the same thing for our laws (extrateritorial DMCA jurisdiction... what has the world come to!).

  • US Verses the World (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:29PM (#3101564) Journal
    Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights.

    God bless, what will happen next?

    Understand, this is a novel thought for some USians

    • Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights.

      You mean, there are other countries out there, besides the US? :-)

    • Ah, so when YOU are restricted in your behavior in country X because of US Law, you wont complain.


      The big problem with this sort of nonsense is that it restricts rights to the lowest common denominator. Who wants to be restricted to the "rights" of Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? (Name your country)?


      The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too. You in country X should not be held to the laws of Afghanistan.


      Yeah, yeah, most of the WORST countries are not members of the WTO or WIPO...YET, but the PRINCIPAL is what is important. Do you want Europe to be subject to US patent and copyright laws? Say hello to Microsnot running your country the way it does the US. Kiss goodbye competitive industries you've developed in the absense of nonsensical US laws. It DOES flow both ways - if you are happy about YOUR laws applying/restricting US citizens, then you HAVE to be happy when the reverse is true.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • I wouldn't even BEGIN to defend the DeCSS or Sklyarov bullcrap. These together with the title story are what is WRONG and it is this that I decry. Also, I responded to the statement "Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights" which by its context and word defended this bullcrap.


          If we wish to create global copyright and trademark, etc, rules/laws, then they should be based on some of the least restrictive rules rather than the most draconian (the US versions). The US has gone crazy and overboard with its corporatocracy-biased rules. Just because people across the pond have had US law improperly applied to them in their non-US residence doesn't make it OK or right and it doesn't make it OK and right to do the reverse. The entire setup is wrong and largely indefensible.


          The statement holds true: If you like the fact that a US citizen was restricted/punished based on some European law, then you absolutely CANNOT complain when the opposite is true. In fact, it sucks both ways but if your attitude is the above, you have no right to complain one way or another.

      • The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too. You in country X should not be held to the laws of Afghanistan.

        Well this gets into the issues of "it is alright to beat my wife" if for example when the tailban were in power.

        The simplest solution is that the laws of a country are valid for that country, and you are subject to their laws while you are there.

        The flip side of this is the lunacy of an american getting prosecuted in Tennesee for an adult website in San Fransico (actual case) but applied to the international level.

  • Does the law guide or replace? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaseStudy ( 119864 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @01:30PM (#3101566) Homepage
    Did the judge just look to Spanish law to help make his point, or did he specifically say that Spain had jurisdiction over the case?

    If the former, so what? Judges are guided by all sorts of things in their opinions. It's only in the application of the laws of the judge's jurisdiction that stare decisis applies.

    If the latter, why? The precedential effect will be in the choice of law, and why Spanish law was chosen over the ACPA is vitally important. (I get the impression that Spanish law was used merely to determine whether "Barcelona" was protectable by the ACPA.)
    • When it comes down to it, the original registrants of barcelona.com were acting in extremely bad faith, and unbelievable though it may seem, the judge was clever enough to see that. There *is* room for interpretation in today's legal system, and the judge in this case seems to have been savvy enough to use that skill in association with the already existing laws.

      Is there an undertone in your comment which suggests that US interests should ALWAYS be favoured, when in competition with foreign ones? Is altruism completely absent from your thinking here? ;-)
      • No undertone; you're reading things into my comment that aren't there. (Or trying to get an "Insightful" mod by having the insight that there's more to the world than the U.S., but now I'm reading things into your comment.) You also seem to think I disagree with the judgment, which isn't the case.

        What I was saying is that, as I understand the case, the U.S. judge didn't need to supersede the law of his own jurisdiction to find that the registrants were acting in bad faith, contrary to what the Slashdot summary appeared to suggest, and this decision doesn't open the door to huge conflict-of-laws problems.
  • I am with Robertson on this one.

    The Internet is not a Dewey Decimal System library. The indexing and categorization of information, as it's manifested in the meaning in URLs, is a natural process. It happened due to geeks being funny, people trying to make money, and so on. We have the wonderful histories of sites like www.whitehouse.com, which brings up the question - is it true that people who want information on the web about the White House would not want to see a porno site? I don't think so.
    Protection from surprise on the Internet should not be the realm of the government, but the realm of the individual.

    • Re:cleveland.com is in trouble (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When it comes to "categorization of information" I thought .com was intended for commericial entities, with other extensions for geographical entities. Is the city of Barcelona now the same type of thing as IBM? Or has the original concept of different top level domains for different types of thing become totally meaningless?
  • Quartz.com has nothing to worry about, at least not from this law. Quartz J.S. cannot claim a trademark on "quartz" for its crystal, as it's either generic (if it's made from the mineral) or likely to confuse (if it isn't). On the other hand, quartz.com appears be a U.S. trademark (since adding ".com" to a generic name apparently creates something unique) for the National Scientific Co.
  • Anyone else think that companies should be a little quicker to register their own domain names? If cybersquatting is becoming that big of a problem, maybe domain name registration should become part of the process for a business license.

    As one poster said, the domain name system isn't the dewey decimal system of the web anyway. A web address doesn't have to be more descriptive than a brick and mortar store's physical street address. If you're stuck with "ambrosiasw.com" instead of just "ambrosia.com," you won't go out of business. Customers will find your website if you include the address on advertisements and products. Besides, blindly typing in URLs in the hope of finding the product you're looking for is a hit and miss method of surfing.

  • Isn't barcelona.es good enough for them? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I mean, it is a city in Spain, right? And there is a reason every country has a TLD, right? What do they need a .com for? Are they an American company?
    • .US is reserved for the U.S:. .com is for world wide generic purpose commercial (or should be), or trade mark, or protected name (cultural name for example?). In no way it is reserved for U.S. resident or firms.

  • Quartz for all!!! (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by posmon ( 516207 )
    Quartz J.S. is the biggest producer of soda-lime, crystal, neutral glass and crystalline. The company has traditions and experience in the production of different sorts colour and colourless glasses with high quality in order to satisfy the clients. In august, 1999 Quartz J.S become a private company. Sofia Intercommerce Ltd. is the only dealer represented Quartz Company all over the world. Photo gallery Today Quartz J.S. produces: Articles of 24% lead crystal glass with high quality - a wide range of hand-blown exquisite glasses, vases, fruit-bowls, ice buckets of different series and sorts. The hand cutting makes them really valuable. Lighting fixtures emphasize an aesthetic and snugness of each home, office, hotel and restaurant. The chandeliers, bracket lamps, table lamps, lampions are complete with own lampshades - one-layer glass, two-layer opal glass, frosted, with different decoration. Antiwetting, antidusting and signaling lamps. Tableware of crystalline: plates, fruit-bowls, ashtrays, utensils, etc.
  • Since when do federal courts protect the "trademark" rights of foreign governmental entities in the names of geographic locations? I am stunned and amazed, shocked and apalled (and a whole bunch of other s & a word combinations) at this decision. I fail to see first how anyone but the most inexperienced newbie could believe a .com was the "official" site of a Spanish governmental entity (ok - maybe I'm giving people more credit than they deserve on this point).

    Nevertheless, at the least there are no trademark "rights" available to protect under Spanish law in the mere name "Barcelona," so this decision is based on literally nothing.

    &lt ON-SOAPBOX rant_level=3&gt

    This is the EXACT REASON why I continuously plead, beg, cajole, threaten, etc. all those in the tech community to get involved politically and legally. Lawyers and judges who do not understand technological and/or intellectual property rights (and believe me - those lawyers and judges are in the overkwhelming majority) pose clear and present dangers to the legal framework controlling the tech world because these people do not understand the issues enough to make informed decisions and do not (and cannot) comprehend the consequences of the positions they advocate and decisions they make. Each of us has a responsibility to educate these people to ensure that the law evolves in a way that fairly addresses the interests of not only the techies but society as a whole.

    &lt /ON-SOAPBOX rant_level=0&gt

    • This is the EXACT REASON why I continuously plead, beg, cajole, threaten, etc. all those in the tech community to get involved politically and legally.

      You know, I think you're very, very right. I would actually want to do just that. I'm willing to drop everything and start a new career in, well, political tech counselling, or whatever you'll call it? Or whatever would be more efficient?
      However, one question stands:
      How?

      Your insight would be much appreciated. Thanks.
      • I only know what works for me and that is making sure when I argue in Court that I make sure that the judge before whom I argue has complete correct facts about the technology and the applicable law.

        If you want to get started in the way you describe, I suggest getting some basic exposure to lobbying efforts generally by contacting the Electronic Freedom Foundation [eff.org] or the ACLU's Cyber-Liberties [aclu.org] group. They are much better suited to help you on your new carrer path than I.

  • These sort of measures are expected to happen, and I find it not so surprising. Cybersquatting has become less and less a term in our collective vocabulary, and I find it hard to belevive that the majority would feel apprehensive about a law, for all intents and purposes, is already in place. Common sence would have told me to not choose a name used by corporations in other countires.

    Be that as it may, there are certain individuals who may be innocent in the matter, and find themselves in a whole heap of trouble down the road if they failed to do the research needed for a new domain name.

  • Unrelated, but worth mentioning:

    On February 25, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and four law school clinics announced the launch of a website and project that has been established to educate Internet users about their rights online. The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse [chillingeffects.org] provides detailed information about the legal rights of Internet users regarding "cease-and-desist" letters (letters sent from entities claiming violation of copyright or trademark and other grievances and threatening legal action if the violating party does not cease and desist). The project currently provides basic legal information on issues like copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, trademark and domain names, anonymous speech, and defamation.

    The Chilling Effects website includes a forum for Internet users to post their cease-and-desist letters to an online clearinghouse. Students at the participating law clinics will review the letters and annotate them with links to explain applicable legal rules. The four Internet law clinics currently involved are Harvard, Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of San Francisco, and the project is expected to grow to include additional law schools.

    Posted letters will remain online in a searchable database that interested parties can consult to find information that relates to their particular situation. "The Internet makes it easier for individuals to speak to a wide audience, but it also makes it easier for other people and corporations to silence that speech," said Wendy Seltzer, Fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, who created the project and website. "Chilling Effects aims to level the field by helping online speakers to understand their rights in the face of legal threats."

  • Similar tangant but...

    How about companies like namezero who let you register a doamin name for free and then after a year make you pay them. You can't take your registration needs elsewhere because now they own your domain name even though they have no claim to it other than you, and you no longer want to use their services. So, what about getting the domain that you've been using fairly back without having to use that company that you foolishly started up with?

    Sorry, I just made this mistake and namezero happens to be telling me they'll take away my domain if I don't pay even though it hasn't been anywhere near the year that I was promised. And I don't know what choice I will have other than pay them because my domain is now in their name. Aren't they basically squatting because they know there is a buyer, me, who wants the domain?
    • Well, thats what you get for looking for a free lunch :P If you have some sort of other trademark claim on your domain, you can probably get the rights back, but, as I understand oprations like namezero, they essentially view applications as ideas. They then register the name you suggest, and graciously let you use it for a while. Unlike with a real registrar, there's no contract or anything, and you aren't the registered owner. Bad faith buisness, surely, but not really within any bounds of legislation. Buyer beware and all that.

  • I've never understood part of this legal issue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by reemul ( 1554 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @02:33PM (#3101785)
    I support the rights of corporations to protect their intellectual property, including rights to domain names containing trademarks. However, I don't think they should retain the right to those domains if they don't pursue them within a certain period. How did this retroactive ownership come about, when it doesn't exist anywhere else that I'm aware of in IP law? If company A produces a product called "tradenameA" but doesn't actually go forward with the process to own that trademark, in everything other than domain names they are just out of luck. If company B decides to trademark "tradenameA", company A doesn't get to sue to demand that it be given up, especially not years later. All company A gets to do is seethe.

    Why can companies with established trademarks wait for years and years without registering a domain - which they were free to do at any time until someone else grabbed it - and then successfully sue to get the domain only after a third party got the ignored name? I'd give a company six months to a year after registering the trademark to have first option on all unused domains with that trademark, but after that their inaction would leave affected domains forever out of their legal grasp. Throw in a similar grandfather period for every other company starting from a fixed date, to cover all old trademarks that haven't yet been pursued. Past that date, their rights to that name are the same as anyone else, first-come first-served.

    Especially now that large corporations can be their own registrar, there is just no possible excuse for them not pre-emptively registering any possible desired, unused domain name. For ($30/month? IIRC), any company can register every possible variant of a trademark they like, from common spelling errors to "-sucks" &etc. But if they don't take action, they give up their rights to future action. Simple as that.

    ps - anyone want to help the process along with a GPL home registrar solution? Just download, compile, pay your monthlies, and you're ready to register vanity domains for all of your friends, co-workers, pets, to your hearts content. I'm sure there are some other requirements, but I'd suspect a large number of ISPs and decent sized companies and non-profits would qualify.

    -reemul
    • I support the rights of corporations to protect their intellectual property, including rights to domain names containing trademarks. However, I don't think they should retain the right to those domains if they don't pursue them within a certain period. How did this retroactive ownership come about, when it doesn't exist anywhere else that I'm aware of in IP law?


      Trademark law properly does allow them to go after names that they have trademarked. In order to maintain a trademark you must defend it. This doesn't mean that they must be aware of every possible new technology that comes along. But they can prevent anyone from diluting the value of their trademark. When the web became well known, then they can get addresses that violate their trademark.

      Now, on the other hand, not every possible name that matches a trademark necessarily violates a trademark. Like a guy named McDonalds who creates a www.mcdonalds.com domain in good faith, and nothing on his site is easily confused with the mega corporation of the same name.

      Their right to the domains is really the right to their trademark. If they don't protect their trademark, it can fall into common usage. But I don't think there should be a seperate timeout for them to obtain domain names, or trademarks in whatever other new wizbang technology comes along.
      • I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that domain names and trademarks are sufficiently similar that ownership of a trademark automatically entitles the owner to also have the domain, and additional domains based on it, with no effort on their part. Domains are cheap and becoming cheaper all the time. There is just no excuse to let a domain name go unclaimed for long periods and then leap on it only after someone else wants it. This should be considered the same as forgetting to file basic paperwork, you snooze you lose, no mulligans or do-overs or "I-meant-tos". I'd be amenable to a formal ruling, or even black letter law, that not pursuing a domain name does not count as failing to protect a trademark, but if the trademark owner can't be bothered to spend less than the cost of a fscking happy meal per month to own the domain outright I don't think they are entitled to any consideration.
        • But one could argue the same about other technologies not getting trademark protection. Sample arguments that I don't agree with.

          I don't agree that a trademark should automatically entitle the owner to stop me from printing whatever I want to in my own newspaper, or leaflets, etc.

          See the problem with this argument? To continue the argument....

          Printed paper is cheap and becomming cheaper all the time. There is just no excuse for Coke (tm) letting me use their trademark for a long time, and then leap on it only after someone else prints it.

          Now, I admit this is a weak analogy to your argument. But NOT registering a domain name should not cause you to loose trademark protection. Now if someone else does register it, and use it in a way that dilutes your trademark, then you SHOULD loose trademark protection if you fail to act. But the thinking that the neglect to register a domain name, esepcially when the Internet was still under the radar of most people, should not affect trademark status.

          Another question this leads to is, How many variations of my trademark should I have to register? Acme-Widgets.com Acme.com Widgets.com AcmeWidgets.com Widgets-Acme.com Acme_Widgets.com

          Surely you don't believe that just anyone should be allowed to register CocaCola.com and start using it, especially in a way that is confusing with the trademark. On the other hand, I would take the side of the domain name owner if the use had NO POSSIBLE confusion. But CocaCola.com, for example, is pretty hard to imagine. A different example, such as McDonalds.com is easier to imagine other legit. uses.

          To disagree with another of your points. As much as I hate mega corps, who often are the valuable trademark owners, I do not agree that trademark owners should be required to own a domain name. Think of the possible abuses. Okay, I start some kind of name service, or "yellow pages", or somesuch. I charge money to register. Should anyone be able to register a trademark? Should trademark owners be required to pay me to register their name at my site/service/directory, whatever? I would also point out that trademark owners are sometimes small businesses. Say a family business that employs 80 people. Sometimes their trademarks are even valuable. To put the shoe on the other foot, do you think that a trademark owner should have no recourse when someone else, esepcially a well-heeled and wealthy someone else, mis-appropriates their trademark, say, by registering and using a domain name?

  • Two cities with the same name? (Score:3)

    by HuskyDog ( 143220 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @02:37PM (#3101803) Homepage
    The are numerous examples of cities in different countries with the same names. Particularly between the UK and USA. Two obvious examples are London and Birmingham. Who gets the birmingham.com domain? The one in England, or the one in Alabama?
    • Who registered it first?
    • Neither, thats what .UK and .US are for.
      I think domain names should be simplified.
      There would not be half the problems if the system was not being abused. What would be so bad about birmingham.al.us and birmingham.uk
      • There would not be half the problems if the system was not being abused.

        I agree!

        What would be so bad about birmingham.al.us and birmingham.uk

        Absolutely nothing, except that - as you imply - practically everyone in the USA thinks that .com means an American company and most folks elsewhere think that .com means the first organisation to choose the name.

        Recently, I heard a british priest being interviewed on the radio about something happening at his church. At the end of the interview he said "You can find at more at www.lowerdingleychurch.COM" (or some such). Since when has his little village church been an international business? What's wrong with .org.uk? Give me strength!!

    • Neither, since government web sites are postfixed with .gov, not .com.

  • I hope (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hope America has freedom of speech someday.
  • How long will it take for the XML namespace standard of using URI's as the global identifier to take hold for trademarks? What the trademark people need is a globally unique way of defining trademarks, why not copy the XML way of making globally unique id's?

    e.g.:

    http://Coca-cola.tm
    http://Coca-cola.tm/Coke

  • I'm counting on Sealand to pass some copyright laws that allow me to obtain all the good names ;)
  • Now evey two bit retardo government that has some grief with the US can control our domain names. France, for example, could pass laws giving the domain names of Anti-nazi violaters to the state or whatever and end thier whole case against Yahoo.com quick as can be.
    • France, for example, could pass laws giving the domain names of Anti-nazi violaters to the state or whatever and end thier whole case against Yahoo.com quick as can be

      Wrong. Just like in the first Yahoo/France case, the court would rule that no law (American or foreign) can override constitutional guarantees - then the freedom of speech; now due process as well as speech. (Because a domain name is a kind of financial resource.)

  • One suggestion... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BarefootClown ( 267581 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @03:54PM (#3102071) Homepage

    Perhaps Barcelona (the city) would be better served with barcelona.sp, barcelona.city.sp, or barcelona.(spanish for city).sp., or perhaps even barcelona.gov (admittedly, most .gov addresses are referring to US-centric governmental entities). .com domains are (ostensibly) for commercial entities; hence, a travel portal would, in fact, be appropriate. In this case, the intended naming structure should (IMHO) be used as a guide.

    The big problem with this approach is that most of the internet user base doesn't know about this naming structure. Most users think of .com as the only TLD, and append .com automatically; indeed, I have done so myself several times, knowing full well what I meant. Look at the popularity of www.whitehouse.com, www.nasa.com, and other such domains as evidence of this. The case for ruling in favor of the city of Barcelona is best made with an argument about the {customs, expectations, ignorance, stupidity} of the users.

    Just my two cents.

    • There are countries whose top-level-domain is an abbreviation of the countries name in its native language.

      The toplevel domain for Spain is .es, like españa. Not .sp.

      I guess they already have taken an appropriate domain, but do not agree with a company using the city's name for their own commercial gain...
    • Except there is no .sp domain. The country code for Spain is .es (for España).
    • Not to nitpick, but:

      .gov is for US Government only.
      The TLD for Spain is .es

      You can read up on country TLDs here [iana.org].

  • Does this lawsuit set a precendent that someone could be fined $100K under the ACPA for foreign trademark violations, or does the precendent only extend to loss of one's domain name?

    If someone can get fined $100K (instant bankruptcy for most people - by the way, this HAS actually been levied in some US cases!) for violating another country's trademark - the Internet has become a very dangerous place to be. Having to worry about every jurisdiction in the world and holding yourself to the standards of the most restrictive one is untenable.

    Well I guess it's only fair US citizens get subject to foreign laws, since we seem to make people from outside the US (Sklyarov) responsible for obeying US law even while in Russia.

    Best way to kill the Internet - make all of it subject to every countries laws (including Taliban controlled Afghanistan - lets be "inclusive").

    Then everyone will be forced to go back to watching TV instead of using the "subversive" Internet.

  • Could Brazil sue Amazon.com from improper use of their trademark? People wanting to know about the Amazon might go to amazon.com.

    Just like the [former] owners of barcelona.com, amazon.com profits from their use of a foreign trademark, or at least they try to.
  • Fact 1: Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

    Fact 2: The authorities steal words that belong to everybody and give them to Big Business - because domain names were not designed to be trademarks. Ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System. He was asked [thestandard.com], what do you wish you had invented? His reply, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."

    Fact 3: The UN World Intellectual Property Organization and the US Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. Please see at WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - nothing to do with the United Nations WIPO.org.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close