IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court

fgaliegue writes "Ars Technica has a follow-up on the ifpi.com domain takeover by The Pirate Bay. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ifpi.org, is quite unhappy that the .com is now a link to the (still not live) International Federation of Pirates Interests. The ifpi.com domain has been free as soon as March of this year, according to WebArchive. Nevertheless, the "real" IFPI wants to take it to the WIPO under the accusation of cybersquatting."

Not actually squatting

[tietokone-olmi (26595)]

They're putting it to good use, right? Besides, claims of squatting would sound rather strange considering ifpi.com had lapsed in March already, and they're only twitching now that it's become a mite embarrassing.

Still, one shouldn't underestimate the potential for corruption in organizations like the WIPO. Especially since they have their hands in the large and varied jar of "intellectual property".

Re:Not actually squatting

[Fozzyuw (950608)]

They're putting it to good use, right?

It's not about "good use", it's about copyright and "bad faith" [icann.org].

a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site. IE. Coca-Cola registering Pepsi.com and redirecting it to Coke.com. However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.

b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Re:Not actually squatting

[julesh (229690)]

However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.
[...]
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

The IFPI is not a business. Pirate Bay is not its competitor. This clearly doesn't apply.

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

This is harder. However, the IFPI.com site has a prominent link to IFPI.org along with a disclaimer pointing out that they are not affiliated. Such disclaimers and links have, I believe, been successful in the past at protecting against claims under this term.

I think TPB have a fairly good case to keep the domain.

Re:

[julesh (229690)]

Also, TPB doesn't gain commercially from any visitors it attracts to the site. It's (likely to be) a political campaigning site. There are free speech arguments to be made here.

Re:Not actually squatting

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

The IFPI is not a business. Pirate Bay is not its competitor. This clearly doesn't apply.

Oh come on! The IFPI is an outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests of their masters. Pirate Bay is an "anti-IP" organization, clearly there is a connection. Pirate Bay didn't just buy some random domain for no particular reason.

And who said they have to be businesses in competition? (IV) says "...intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain...". Last time I checked, Pirate Bay ran scads of ads, which they don't give away for free. If you're honest you understand clearly that Pirate Bay bought the domain because of its connection to IFPI.org, and a reasonable person assumes that such a connection exists and would drive traffic.

Re:

[Dare nMc (468959)]

competition? (IV) says "...intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain..."

you left out the important part:

"by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark"

of course almost all domain names would qualify as attempting to gain traffic with their domain name choice, thats the point. pirate bay likely has no interest in those attempting to contact the ifpi.org, they do whoever want to get all the publicity possible out of the website name.

this would easily be shown simply with t

Re:

[RealGrouchy (943109)]

In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site.

It's not a matter of choosing one part. It clearly states that subsections i, ii, AND iii must be met to make a cybersquatting claim.

- RG>

This is not Cybersquatting

[RaigetheFury (1000827)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting [wikipedia.org]

First, the premise behind Cybersquatting is to obtain money or some other form of compensation. The Pirate Bay has no intention and no desire to obtain any compensation from them. While the site being made may be satirical or "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" in focus... it's still not cybersquatting.

Looks like someone forgot to pay for the domain, the name lapsed and somebody picked it up then gave it to Pirate Bay. And unless the law changes... Pirate Bay wins.

Re:

[Gossi (731861)]

And unless the law changes... Pirate Bay wins.

Uhm, there's no law against domain cyber squatting anyway. There are, however, processes to recover .com domains -- it's happened many times before in cases like this. It's entirely likely TPB will loose the domain.

My suggestion to TPB folk is to use the domain to seriously shit on the IFPI in the mean time. IFPI know full well that's on all their old letter heads, business cards etc - embarrass the fuck out of them whilst you can.

Re:This is not Cybersquatting

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's entirely likely TPB will loose the domain.
Have you considered applying for a /. editor position?

The "real" IFPI?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why International Facilities and Property Information Ltd. [int-fpi.com] would be suing The Pirate Bay.

From IFPI.com

[Devv (992734)]

"International Federation of Pirates Interests should not be confused with {The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry}[ifpi.org]."

it's in use

[v1 (525388)]

Despite the looks of the headlines hre, TPB IS using the site. Heck, they've got more content on their page than I do on mine. It's not a lot more than a "comig soon..." page but we see that all the time for businesses that are just getting their cyberpresense off the ground. I suppose every reasonable person already has concluded that the IFPI (org) doesn't have a leg to stand on but I am enjoying the opportunity to laugh at (A) the org's ineptitude of allowing this to happen in the first place, and (B) for an organization that so enjoys perverting the law to their benefit finding themselves clearly positioned on the other end of the gun.

If TPB requested a legal fund to defend themselves on this issue, I'd be tossing them some coin right now. Give 'em hell.

I love it when the magic works...

[Undead Ed (1068120)]

I applaud Pirate Bay their sense of irony and their sense of humor!

Now if we could just get a photograph of Mickey Mouse smoking a dube.

Ed

Re:I love it when the magic works...

[mazarin5 (309432)]

Is shooting up in the middle of an orgy [illegal-art.org] good enough?

Re:

[elronxenu (117773)]

Like this one?

mickey.JPG [0catch.com]

in a perfect world

[someone1234 (830754)]

the 'pirates' would have gotten .org and the phonographic guys would have gotten the .com domain.

Just rename the org...

[penguin_dance (536599)]

Pirate Bay should just say IFPI stands for the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry

No cybersquatting here! ;-)

Seriously though, why should anyone be allowed to run to court and file charges of cybersquatting after letting their domain lapse renewal for so many months? There should be a 60-day statute of limitations on these. No one should own an inherent RIGHT to their domain name after letting it lapse. Otherwise you're opening the door for companies and organizations to come back years after the fact and say, "Thank you, I'll take my domain back now."

Re:Pretty Cheesy

[Dunbal (464142)]

taking over and using IFPI like this is a pretty low-life kind of thing to do.

      No one has "taken over" the site. It was for sale. Someone bought it, and gave it to the Pirate Bay. If they want the site so badly, perhaps they can offer to BUY IT from Pirate Bay, no?

Re:

[Mike89 (1006497)]

I do not think this would be a good idea (for TPB), since it would strengthen the argument that TPB just wanted to rip off the (old) IPFI.

Correct, this would not be a good idea. See Mike Rowe Soft [wikipedia.org]

Relevant quote:

He responded, asking instead for $10,000. However, in doing this, he unwittingly fulfilled one of the criteria for proving a bad faith domain registration as set out in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy; namely, that as Rowe had offered to sell the domain name to the company for p

Re:Pretty Cheesy

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Well, I disagree. An outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests should have been more competent in the IT department, and protected their own domain a little better. They screwed up. Let them take their lumps, just like anyone else that forgets to fork over a few bucks to their registrar.

So, if you're trying to imply that The Pirate Bay hacked into their site and took it over that's just wrong. They got hold of a lapsed domain name and apparently they're using it. The fact that they torqued off the IFPI (not a pleasant bunch to begin with) is just too bad. Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of thing that The Pirate Bay would do ... keep in mind that they have just as much of an agenda as the IFPI and their ilk. Raising awareness of these rather important issues is one of the things that The Pirate Bay likes to do, and this is one hell of a way to do it.

Besides, I think it's hysterical. And I wouldn't be too sure of the WIPO business either.

Re:Cut the BS PirateBay!

[ancientt (569920)]

The Pirate Bay and others like it are fighting a battle where the clashing ideologies are essentially based on who has a right to make how much money. The *AA believe they have the right to profit the most from music and have the system of law to back them up. The opposing group believes that this system of law squelches art and freedom and may well eventually destroy the ability of the artist to have music, movies or other art distributed in a fair manner to the masses.

Since there is a body of law in question, the issue is not so simple as just two groups arguing, the one without the legal backing must by definition break the laws in order to do what they feel is ethically right. It is immoral and unethical to follow a bad law, and they believe the laws concerning copyright are bad ones.

Radiohead and allofmp3.com make convincing arguments that the current system does in fact depress creative and free expression. The issue doesn't affect me directly since I don't purchase and don't download and rarely listen to music and don't watch movies other than the ones on broadcast TV. Still, I watch closely since flouted laws tend to get changed after a lot of squabbling, and maybe someday there will be sufficient art out there that some of it will appeal to me.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

The Pirate Bay and others like it are fighting a battle where the clashing ideologies are essentially based on who has a right to make how much money. The *AA believe they have the right to profit the most from music and have the system of law to back them up. The opposing group believes that this system of law squelches art and freedom and may well eventually destroy the ability of the artist to have music, movies or other art distributed in a fair manner to the masses.

Agreed so far. There has been certain

Re:

[Sancho (17056)]

Guess I hit 'submit' too quickly--how's that for a political joke?

I wanted to add that your views on civil disobedience, particularly the selfish nature of them, are skewed. Most people who cry "civil disobedience!" aren't enacting true civil disobedience. It's not just about breaking the law that you feel is unjust. It's about dealing with the consequences, and using the attention you get from those consequences to fuel your cause and get people on your side.

If I pirate a movie, that's not civil disobed

Who's arguing?

[ancientt (569920)]

Sancho: You have some valid points. It isn't that democracy itself is bad, but rather that the people who have the most control of the government, and the laws created by the government, are not for the most part in the control of the people supposedly represented. If you educate 10,000 people about the issue, then get their opinions, I'd be shocked to hear that most of them think the current system of content distribution is fair. If the will of the people, as determined by an educated majority were to act