Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz 414
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.
It makes me sick..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, the old %2d%2d legal loophole! (Score:3, Interesting)
My two Canadian cents... (Score:1, Interesting)
Molson corporation makes the 2nd most popular beer in canada which is called 'Canadian', don't they?
Mr. Black had "thought" of starting a business that was basically a glorrified yellow pages, right?
His corralation to why he thinks his business idea (nothing registered, started, or operating as of the ICANN decision) deserves the domain canadian.biz is that the country he lives in just happens to be Canada.
Yeah, I think cyber squatting is completely shitty -- but this d00d didn't even have a functioning business, or even content on his website. Molson owns the freakin' copyright, and registered trademark on the word for christ sakes! It a top level domain that's geared towards owners of copyrighted trademarks, so this is one case where I gotta be reasonable and say Mr. Black -- you don't have a case.
Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
What we need (Score:4, Interesting)
So, instead, we need DNS resolution in our libraries (glibc, etc.) and our internet applications (browsers, ftp & ssh clients, etc.) that include the concept of multiple root authorities, with easilly settable defaults.
Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/
Obviously, old nomenclature would remain in place, using the system default for root authority (presumably Opennic and not ICANN).
It is only this approach, that will default to freedom but allow those of us who need to access ICANN-managed sites (most of the web today) to cross the line at will, that will enable us to free ourselves from ICANN's grip while still being able to make sensible use of the web.
Whether the alternative becomes Opennic, or some new entity ('freenic' anyone?) it needs to be constructed with a solid, equitable constitution that preserves freedom of speech above everything else, and does not favor large corporate or government interests over the rights of individuals, with an open, public, and fair judicial process for resolving name disputes. Ideally it would also include a
Re:What we need (Score:2, Interesting)
Therefore MegaSoft can be used by both a company selling rather limp plastic and also a company selling computer software. Not only that but you could have a company in France called MegaSoft selling computer software and a totally different company in Japan also called MegaSoft selling computer software. There are exceptions, under UK law, for example you couldn't register Pepsi if you are a carpet salesman because Pepsi is already, in the eyes of the public, associated with a specific product.
I guess that a solution would be to have a
Microsoft would have microsoft.*.tm because they are pretty much globally known, where * is any country code.
boots.uk.tm because, as far as i know, everyone in the uk will associate boots with the chemist company but i don't think they have much of a global presence.
and so on.
Any other solutions?
Re:What we need (Score:3, Interesting)
So who do you give (or rather, sell) mtv.tm to? The MTV from the US, the MTV from Italy, or the MTV from Brazil? A generic homepage with a link to each and every such trademark registered, along with a small description of the company (location, market)? Actually, that's an idea. But then how do you order the links? More money gets you on top?
Maybe you remember a few years back, altavista.com wasn't the correct link for the search engine of the same name. The company operating altavista.com had a link on the top saying "The AltaVista search engine can be found here". After that they must have sold the domain, because altavista.com was the correct link for a couple years.
Amazon's squatting php.org (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Government challenge? (Score:2, Interesting)
(In Europe, "Beer of Kings" is actually the centuries-old slogan of Budjovick Budvar N.P [budweiser.cz], the Czech brewery that Anheuser-Busch stole the name from in 1876. Budvar didn't officially give AB permission until 1911, meaning Anheuser-Busch built its empire on trademark infringement. It's a small irony, but a painful one.)
Re:The unix.org case makes a good point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The unix.org case makes a good point (Score:2, Interesting)
Entirely - so much for corporate sponsorship of charities and such. Guess its open season now.
There should be a very, very simple way to decide on cybersquatting: if the page you get when going to the URL is "This domain is taken, contact us if you'd like to purchase it", then its cybersquatting. If its anything else (e.g. someone's actually *using* it for something already) then first-come, first-serve should rule.
I recently purchased a domain for a client (Gourmet Pantry [gourmetpantry.net]) of my company with a ".net" extension, even though the client was just a company that we were setting up an e-commerce site for. However, they couldn't get their company's name with .com, because it was being squatted upon and the site you get when you go to it says that at a MINIMUM, getting the domain will cost $600!! That's ridiculous. There's no need for that kind of crap on the 'Net.
I could see a few exceptions to "first-come, first serve" - at least at the inception of the Internet. e.g. McDonald's Corp. should get mcdonalds.com, regardless of who's using it - their brand is internationally recognized (and this can be measured). At this point in the 'Net's life, however, first-come, first-serve should be fine since no company will come up with a "new" name that is magically nationally or internationally recognized. Even if an existing multi-national company creates a new product, most product marketing specialists know to look for a URL as soon as a list of potential product names is proposed, so that the microsite can launch under an appropriate URL.
And their logo? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, as a Canadian, aren't you just a bit offended that a word so closely tied to your identity has been usurped by a corporation for its own gains?
One of their slogans seems to be I am Canadian [www.iam.ca]. (Forgive me for being unfamiliar with their marketing - we don't drink much Molson here...)
Can you legally even say that aloud anymore without infringing upon their trademarks?
Not being Canadian, I won't try to tell you how you should feel, but I'm just a bit curious.
(Maybe it's such a good beer that Canadians don't mind - I honestly don't know...)
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
Re:It makes me sick..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Either you never owned this name, or you owned it and let it lapse long enough to become available again. It doesn't really matter though, at the bottom of the page it states that the name is for sale. Have you contacted them to see how much they want for it? Can't be much since a Google for "moerobotics" returns that site and exactly one other hit.
If you actually have a legitamate claim to the name you will have no problem yanking it away from those squatters based on the fact that tehy are obviously trying to sell it. Have you tried filing a dispute yet?
BTW only the
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again I also helped contribute to something very evil as I had a link to an online survey which paid me. The results of that survey helped form one of the evil internet marketing companies.