More Domain Disputes Labeled 'Reverse-Hijacking' 155
merodach writes: "This article on technews.com actually has a rare piece of good news in it - two corporations whose attempts to take domains from others were rebuked as attempts at "reverse hijacking." We can only hope that maybe the arbitrators are finally beginning to see the light." Read the story and be amazed at the audacity of these companies.
Forbidden (Score:1)
Forbidden
Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.
Anyone else getting this error?
Broken Link? (Score:1)
Re:Broken Link? (Score:1)
The link's dead, Jim! (Score:3, Funny)
slashdotted already? (Score:1)
Anyone have a mirror?
Re:slashdotted already? (Score:1, Troll)
By the way, what's up with your horrible sentence structure? 'Looks like a new record.' -- No subject
The first sentence refers to the linked page as plural (because the site root is in parens). Please doublecheck your grammar next time and keep Slashdot a quality news site.
Aspen Grove (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Aspen Grove (Score:1)
Re:Aspen Grove (Score:1)
Re:Aspen Grove (Score:1)
Re:Aspen Grove (Score:1)
The text (Score:4, Informative)
WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
By Steven Bonisteel, Newsbytes
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND,
19 Oct 2001, 5:20 PM CST
A pair of companies - including Swiss food giant Nestle - have received unusually stern rebukes from international arbitrators who say the firms attempted to abuse a procedure that is supposed to sort out disputes over the ownership of Internet domain names.
In two separate decisions published this week, arbitrators refereeing disputes on behalf of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) said the companies that had accused others of being cybersquatters were in fact attempting to "reverse hijack" the Internet addresses in question.
Findings of reverse hijacking are relatively rare under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), even though the system for settling disputes over conflicts between trademark holder and domain-name registrants has seen more than 4,500 cases in less than two years.
But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Also accused of reverse hijacking - but reprimanded less harshly by another trio of WIPO arbitrators - was Boston-area software company Aspen Grove, which had attempted to claim the domain AspenGrove.com from a family in Salt Lake City.
Nestle had turned to WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center, one of four organizations accredited to resolve UDRP complaints, in a bid to evict another Swiss company, Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG, from the Internet address Maggi.com.
Nestle said the registration of Maggi.com clearly encroached on the trademark it holds for its Maggi brand of sauces and soups.
It complained that Pro Fiducia Treuhand, a financial and management consulting firm with some 40 employees, had no legitimate claim on the Maggi.com domain and that it had registered and used the address in bad faith because, after five years, the company had not made use of the domain for a Web site.
But Pro Fiducia Treuhand says there's a reason it is listed as the holder of Maggi.com: its chairman, Romeo Maggi, had provided the company contact information when he registered the domain for his personal use in 1996.
In his response to WIPO after Nestle's complaint, Maggi said he still plans to use the address to build a Web site for his family and that he had informed Nestle's lawyers of that when they contacted him in 1999. Maggi said appeals from Nestle for the domain actually led to a meeting between the two sides in Geneva a year ago.
The panel of WIPO arbitrators, led by Washington, D.C.-based international business law specialist Dennis Foster, ruled it was clear that Maggi had a legitimate interest in the Maggi.com domain. But what seemed to annoy the trio was that nowhere in Nestle's complaint did its lawyers mention the existence of the Pro Fiducia Treuhand chairman.
"The panel finds the failure of (Nestle)
Pointing out that Nestle had certified in its complaint that the information it provided was, "to the best of (its) knowledge, complete and accurate," the arbitrators wrote: "The panel does not see how that could properly have been said."
"(Nestle) has
"In fact the initial complaint misstated the registration record by failing to name Mr. Maggi as the administrative contact, an error later corrected when noted by the WIPO staff," the panel said. "Had Mr. Maggi failed to defend his position, perhaps complainant's lack of candor might have resulted in a decision in its favor."
"Having instead been exposed, that lack of candor concerning material facts, tied with the lack of legal merit to (Nestle's) position, leads us to the conclusion that this complaint wasbrought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
In the case of the battling Aspen Groves, the workflow-software company from the east coast had complained that Michael Clark of Salt Lake City had no right to AspenGrove.com and that, as in the Maggi.com dispute, the lack of an active Web site at the address suggested a cybersquatter was at work.
Lawyers for Aspen Grove argued that, "by continuing to use the domain name without offering any or little content or any legitimate business use, (Clark) has confused (Aspen Grove's) prospective clients and business partners and has diluted the value of (its) trademark and reputation."
In a response filed on his behalf, Clark's lawyers blasted the notion that the lack of a commercial Web site constituted bad-faith use on an Internet address.
"Domain names may be owned by individuals and utilized solely for personal use," Clark's lawyers argued. "The rule advocated by (Aspen Grove) - that maintenance of a domain name without construction of a commercial Web site is tantamount to bad faith - ignores the history of the Internet and the World Wide Web, is inconsistent with the (UDRP), and is generally poor public policy."
Clark told Newsbytes that his family has used the domain - which reminded them of the aspens around their home at the time the address was registered - for personal communication, including e-mail and the sharing of family photos, for more than four years.
But the real clincher for the WIPO panel led by Mark Partridge, an intellectual property lawyer in Chicago, was that Clark had registered his domain in January of 1997 - a date which was not only before Aspen Grove applied to trademark its name, but which also pre-dated Aspen Grove's incorporation as a company.
Argued Clark's lawyers, "The complaint is based on the incredible premise that a business is ipso facto entitled to a domain name despite the fact that a private individual has registered and continuously used the domain name before the business even existed."
The WIPO arbitrators agreed, saying Aspen Grove's weak claim on a trademark and the fact that Clark's registration was two years ahead of the software company's incorporation justified a reverse-hijacking ruling.
"The panel finds the complainant, even though apparently knowledgeable and assisted by reputable counsel, nonetheless chose to file a complaint without a colorable claim and thus abused the ICANN proceeding," the arbitrators wrote.
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
17:20 CST
(20011019/WIRES TOP, ONLINE, LEGAL, BUSINESS/CYBERSQUAT/PHOTO)
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Re:The text (Score:2)
The technews server is now back up. However, the WIPO decisions are available in fulltext here (Aspen Grove) [wipo.int] and here (Maggi), [wipo.int] for those bright enough to do their own analysis.
Re:The text (Score:1)
When I posted the text, the site was down... everyone was getting 403 or 500 errors. I read the article eariler, so I grabbed it from my cache. I'm sure the author would rather have someone read their article from a different site, than not have access to it at all.
What harm was done? Sure they might loss a couple of ad impressions, but they save server/bandwidth resources. And if you noticed, I left all copyright/author information intact.
A lukewarm welcome... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A lukewarm welcome... Examle before the WWW (Score:4, Interesting)
Few will probably remember this, but many years ago I was eating some Wheat Thins and noticed the company logo and the letters N B C on each cracker. The company is Nabisco, which was once known as National Biscuit Company. Keep in mind that their logo looks a little like an antenna and think about how they and a radio, later TV and media concern National Broadcasting Company butted heads. Clearly Nabisco found a different name and backed down, but they still but N B C on their crackers.
People already bitching about the /. effect (Score:1, Redundant)
By Steven Bonisteel, Newsbytes
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND,
19 Oct 2001, 5:20 PM CST
A pair of companies - including Swiss food giant Nestle - have received unusually stern rebukes from international arbitrators who say the firms attempted to abuse a procedure that is supposed to sort out disputes over the ownership of Internet domain names.
In two separate decisions published this week, arbitrators refereeing disputes on behalf of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) said the companies that had accused others of being cybersquatters were in fact attempting to "reverse hijack" the Internet addresses in question.
Findings of reverse hijacking are relatively rare under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), even though the system for settling disputes over conflicts between trademark holder and domain-name registrants has seen more than 4,500 cases in less than two years.
But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Also accused of reverse hijacking - but reprimanded less harshly by another trio of WIPO arbitrators - was Boston-area software company Aspen Grove, which had attempted to claim the domain AspenGrove.com from a family in Salt Lake City.
Nestle had turned to WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center, one of four organizations accredited to resolve UDRP complaints, in a bid to evict another Swiss company, Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG, from the Internet address Maggi.com.
Nestle said the registration of Maggi.com clearly encroached on the trademark it holds for its Maggi brand of sauces and soups.
It complained that Pro Fiducia Treuhand, a financial and management consulting firm with some 40 employees, had no legitimate claim on the Maggi.com domain and that it had registered and used the address in bad faith because, after five years, the company had not made use of the domain for a Web site.
But Pro Fiducia Treuhand says there's a reason it is listed as the holder of Maggi.com: its chairman, Romeo Maggi, had provided the company contact information when he registered the domain for his personal use in 1996.
In his response to WIPO after Nestle's complaint, Maggi said he still plans to use the address to build a Web site for his family and that he had informed Nestle's lawyers of that when they contacted him in 1999. Maggi said appeals from Nestle for the domain actually led to a meeting between the two sides in Geneva a year ago.
The panel of WIPO arbitrators, led by Washington, D.C.-based international business law specialist Dennis Foster, ruled it was clear that Maggi had a legitimate interest in the Maggi.com domain. But what seemed to annoy the trio was that nowhere in Nestle's complaint did its lawyers mention the existence of the Pro Fiducia Treuhand chairman.
"The panel finds the failure of (Nestle)
Pointing out that Nestle had certified in its complaint that the information it provided was, "to the best of (its) knowledge, complete and accurate," the arbitrators wrote: "The panel does not see how that could properly have been said."
"(Nestle) has
"In fact the initial complaint misstated the registration record by failing to name Mr. Maggi as the administrative contact, an error later corrected when noted by the WIPO staff," the panel said. "Had Mr. Maggi failed to defend his position, perhaps complainant's lack of candor might have resulted in a decision in its favor."
"Having instead been exposed, that lack of candor concerning material facts, tied with the lack of legal merit to (Nestle's) position, leads us to the conclusion that this complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
In the case of the battling Aspen Groves, the workflow-software company from the east coast had complained that Michael Clark of Salt Lake City had no right to AspenGrove.com and that, as in the Maggi.com dispute, the lack of an active Web site at the address suggested a cybersquatter was at work.
Lawyers for Aspen Grove argued that, "by continuing to use the domain name without offering any or little content or any legitimate business use, (Clark) has confused (Aspen Grove's) prospective clients and business partners and has diluted the value of (its) trademark and reputation."
In a response filed on his behalf, Clark's lawyers blasted the notion that the lack of a commercial Web site constituted bad-faith use on an Internet address.
"Domain names may be owned by individuals and utilized solely for personal use," Clark's lawyers argued. "The rule advocated by (Aspen Grove) - that maintenance of a domain name without construction of a commercial Web site is tantamount to bad faith - ignores the history of the Internet and the World Wide Web, is inconsistent with the (UDRP), and is generally poor public policy."
Clark told Newsbytes that his family has used the domain - which reminded them of the aspens around their home at the time the address was registered - for personal communication, including e-mail and the sharing of family photos, for more than four years.
But the real clincher for the WIPO panel led by Mark Partridge, an intellectual property lawyer in Chicago, was that Clark had registered his domain in January of 1997 - a date which was not only before Aspen Grove applied to trademark its name, but which also pre-dated Aspen Grove's incorporation as a company.
Argued Clark's lawyers, "The complaint is based on the incredible premise that a business is ipso facto entitled to a domain name despite the fact that a private individual has registered and continuously used the domain name before the business even existed."
The WIPO arbitrators agreed, saying Aspen Grove's weak claim on a trademark and the fact that Clark's registration was two years ahead of the software company's incorporation justified a reverse-hijacking ruling.
"The panel finds the complainant, even though apparently knowledgeable and assisted by reputable counsel, nonetheless chose to file a complaint without a colorable claim and thus abused the ICANN proceeding," the arbitrators wrote.
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
Re:The page hasn't been Slashdotted! (Score:1)
Reverse Hijacking (Score:4, Interesting)
Well fighting them I thought would be too expensive so let them have it for their nickel. (They paid to transfer it). They are now out of business and a couple of squatters picked it up.
They want $2500 for the domain name. Excuse me?
The game I run is covered under the Diku MUD License, Merc License, and RoM MUD license. It is fun, but not worth $2500.
(btw, for those who don't know, those licenses expressly forbid profiting from running the game based on them)
Re:Reverse Hijacking (Score:2, Funny)
Did you at least send a "congratulatory" e-mail to its top executives when you heard they went out of business? ;-)
Re:Reverse Hijacking (Score:1, Flamebait)
You rolled over at the slightest provocation, and then you want pity for this? Get a pair, buddy -
Sounds like either you felt you didn't have a case, or you're an absolute puss. If you can't afford an attorney and don't want the free one that'll be appointed for you, you take it on personally.
Re:Reverse Hijacking (Score:2)
In a civil case? Since when? So far as I know there's no legal right to an attorney unless you're up against the state.
Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:2)
HOWEVER, if you began marketing your number as 1-888-GO-PEPSI, you'd be openeing yourself up for trademark violation lawsuit. If you marketed the number as 1-888-IM-RESPIRATING, I doubt you'd have a problem.
Re:Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Companies rarely trademark numbers - it may not even be possible (any IP lawyers out there?)
IANAL, but didn't Intel go with "Pentium" partly because they couldn't trademark "586?"Re:Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:1)
Yes, that's correct. What's dissapointing is that Intel didn't proceed to name the subsequent product "Hexium", leading to dorky, hard to remember product names like "Pentium III" :-)
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Security Hardened Linux Distribution [immunix.org]
Available for purchase [wirex.com]
Re:Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:2)
You are wrong.
Pizza companies often trademark their phone numbers. If you've called a number like 310-3030 (an Atlantic Canada pizza joint IIRC), then you've used a trademark.
You can trademark anything so long as it's distinctive. With phone numbers, you have to do a good bit of work marketing them to make them distinctive, but it can be done, and has been done. Theoretically, you could even register an IP address: now that would bring up some interesting issues...
Re:Same problem with 800 phone numbers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Trialing a defense against the slashdot effect? (Score:3, Funny)
THEN chmod 000 slashdottedpage.html
Sorry bout the pseudocode, it would probably work though
Talez
Re:Trialing a defense against the slashdot effect? (Score:1)
Re:Trialing a defense against the slashdot effect? (Score:1)
Re:Trialing a defense against the slashdot effect? (Score:1)
What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:3, Interesting)
What isn't mentioned is what the repercussions will be.
If it is just a matter of pissing away the money on lawyers, that isn't enough.
Sounds like this system is in bad a need of loser pays as the US court system.
-Peter
Re:What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:1)
Lawyers: What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:2)
Somehow I recall some sort of case where the two sides wanted to settle, but ....
But the lawyers saw that they were going to make so much money that they threatened to sue their clients if they did settle in advance to minimise the costs.
And then there is the legal argument that since companies are so beholden to their stock holders, and with certain stock holders so argressive in trying to jerk the company around ... well not suing would open them to legal liabilty from the stock holders for not maximizing profits.
again, the lawyers win.
Shoot all the lawyers, now, I say now!
Re:Lawyers: What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:1)
Sir, you are either trolling or ignorant. I scincerly hope it is the former.
Any lawyer engaging in the sort of activity you descibe above would have his license snatched so quickly it would make his metaphorical head spin!
If your comment was, indeed, the result of ignorance, perhaps it would be to your advantage to refer, in the future, to "lawyers," as "attorneys." It is closer to the nature of the profession: serving as an advocate.
Not that I have any great love of lawyers...
Re:Lawyers: What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:2)
Hopefully so
I do recall the story from a few years ago, it is one of those things that sticks in the mind.
Filing under "urban legend"
I am reminded about the george carlin discussion of the evolution of names describing a medical condition
Shell Shock -> Battle Fatigue -> Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome.
a motion from the descriptive term to the professional, less intimate, term.
Similarly
Janitors -> Custodians -> Maintenance Professionals
and so we come to:
Lawyers -> Attorneys -> ??? Rights Transition Officials or something ???
I'm sure something will come up
Re:What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:2)
A couple of small points:
US courts do not opereate on a loser pays basis. A number of federal statutes do have loser pays provisions, but loser pays is not the rule, and certainly is not the rule in state courts.
Loser pays tends to be a good deal for big guys like Nestle and a bad deal for little guys who can't afford hefty legal fees. For one thing, the little guys aren't likely to get the same quality (or price) of counsel. This would tend to strongly discourage the little guy from suing to protect his rights. Can you imagine the Maggio fellow having to face paying for Nestle's high-priced legal studs if he lost? He might have decided to forego the domain, even though he has every right to it.
Having said that, we must also recognize an offsetting effect. I can imagine a scenario where decent attorneys agreeing to represent someone with a very good case based on the probability of collecting from the loser.
The best answer to things like these are the availability of serious malicious prosecution penalties against those who bring the actions AND their attorneys.
Re:What /isn't/ in the story. (Score:1)
I think you have missed some of the implications of loser pays. It attracts lawyers to
The flip side of the Maggio (?) situation is that
So, the result of loser pays is 1) the big guys ability to steamroller the little guy is greatly reduced and 2) nusance settlements go away, so little guys stop suing big guys as a form of lotto.
-Peter
Fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine has a popular-candy-name.org (not posted so as not to draw attention) that he is using for an IRC server, and has so far never had and problems... but I've often wondered if popular-candy-company would come along and snatch a
Since Romeo Maggi's defense of Maggi.com for individual use and email seemed to fly, I wonder if an IRC server under a
Re:Fair use? (Score:1)
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
I doubt it. Unless there's a Snickers Foundation or a Whatchamacallit Children's Fund, a for-profit candy company would have a hard time claiming rights to the .org name.
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
Domain names are not property (Score:3, Insightful)
Domain names are an abstraction. Essentially, they are no more than a number stored in a database or databases, none of which is owned by the domain's so-called owner. The numbers aren't owned, since we know you can't own a number. The databases are the property of whoever maintains them. Thus the principle objects of the dispute are not even the property of the disputants.
A domain name has no corporeal representation. You cannot touch it, nor can you point to it or isolate it by any means. It has no permanent existance. It must be regularly renewed. Claiming that you can own a domain name is like claiming that you can own some electricity. At best it is an illusion provoked by ignorance.
The closest a domain name gets to ownership is the contract between the "owner" and the registrar. This, however, is not a domain name. It is a contract, and covered under contract law, not IP law. The registrar has the right to terminate the contract if they see fit, provided they comply with the breach of contract conditions. If the registrar is offered a sufficiently high fee to terminate a domain name agreement in favour of a new client, they have the right to do that. If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly in the net, they have a duty to break their contract in favour of the highest bidder.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds a lot like my stock options, but I'm sure as heck stuck with them.
I tried that line with PEPCO, but they still made me pay my bill.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:4, Insightful)
This is utter nonsense. If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly, it must first be possible to trust that people will honour contracts.
-- MarkusQ
Wrong. (Score:1)
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are certainly naive.
Which some might say is still better than being rude.
Why do you think breach of contract clauses exist?
To spell out penalties, the only purpose of which is to discourage people from breaching contracts.
Perhaps if you had actually read Adam Smith's work you would know that he addresses this in both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
As it turns out, I have read The Wealth of Nations. I don't recall anything about domain name registrations, or about breaking contracts whenever it would be profitable to do so (perhaps you could provide a citation?). I do recall a great deal about freely making advantageous agreements, and it is pretty clear from game theory that anyone who makes a habit of breaking agreements will be at a disadvantage when it comes to making them, so I doubt he would have endorsed your view.
Breach of contract is as integral to commerce and the free market as banking.
The existence of penalties for breach of contract is as important as the existence of penalties for interfering with the free market, or for robbing banks. But I don't agree that commerce depends on people breaking contracts, monoplizing markets, or robbing banks.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Note that termination of a contract by either party, if under the terms of the contract, is not breach.
I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:1)
Re:I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. The gap between us is very wide. I can't even respond to your "points" here; they just fall apart when I try to pick them up. (Being eaten alive by rats can't be "a terrible thing" because all terrible things are felonies? How do you tell "self-deceiving libertarians" from libertarians that are deceived by others? Do you mean that atheist libertarians think contracts are worthless?)
But what boggles me most is that, leaving aside the various reasons someone might want to honour their contracts (e.g., self respect), you don't even seem to realize that it's often demonstrably a good strategy [best.com]. How can you even function in society?
-- MarkusQ
Re:I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:1)
Here's a helpful quote (from memory): To succeed you should make many promises but keep none -- Napoleon Bonaparte.
Are you going to tell me he didn't function well in society?
Re:I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:1)
Well if you think Napoleon was a good example then what about Hitler? he broke treaties to the right and left of him - and didn't he succed in conquering most of Europe - A what good social skills he had.
Oops by naming Hitler I am effectively permitting you to invoke Goodwins Law. Well I am smarter than you so I will invoke Goodwins law and declare this thread dead. Since intentionally naming Hitler for purposes of invoking Goodwins law nullifies the permission to invoke the law I hereby cut of your possibillity of ending the thread thus making sure it will carry on with even less connection to any objective reality.
Enter the twilight zone
Re:I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:1)
Re:I'm sorry, but you're still wrong (Score:2)
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:1)
If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly in the net, they have a duty to break their contract in favour of the highest bidder.
This would be a revolutionary change. Everyone could count on losing their domain names to some wealthy company. Micro$oft could wreak havoc among its competitors simply by buying up domain names.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish for you and eat for a lifetime.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:1)
And a domain names not even IP. As a previous poster said, it's just a contract between you and a registrar. While I don't agree with cyber-squatting, you gotta admit that it really is capitalism at it's best - percieving and grasping an opportunity before anyone else.
Ummm.... no. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, some registrars, like gandi [gandi.net], waive that right. Not only that, they give you ownership of the domain. Read about it here [gandi.net].
But yeah, this'll depend heavily on who you sign up with.
Re:Ummm.... no. (Score:1)
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:2)
The key misunderstanding in all such issues is that people view domain names as a form of property. This is patently untrue. It is impossible to form a logical perspective on this case if you regard something as abstract as a domain name as if it was a subject to ownership.
How is a domain name more "abstract" than a trademark, a patent or a musical copyright? I think the entire basis of your post is flawed and the conclusions it comes to are flawed also.
If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly in the net, they have a duty to break their contract in favour of the highest bidder.
What is "operating properly"? Perhaps the Internet community has a legitimate interest in longevity of domain names because there is a clear relationship between longevity of domain names and the survival of meaningful hyperlinks. Furthermore, domain names and trademarks have many commonalities and there is quite an established body of law and practice around the defense of trademarks.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:2)
I'm not the original poster, but I expect he/she would actually agree with you... he/she would say that trademarks, patents, and copyrights aren't "property" either. This is not the usual position but it is a defensible one.
The alleged similarities between domain names and trademarks, IMHO, serve more to confuse the issues than clarify them. You can register the same trademark as someone else, as long as the two don't compete directly. Modern megacorps seems to feel that the Net is ephemeral enough that confusion between markedly different products is easy, but solid enough that traditional property law can be applied.
I'm glad that WIPO might be waking up to the fact that you can't have it both ways.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:2)
I'm not the original poster, but I expect he/she would actually agree with you... he/she would say that trademarks, patents, and copyrights aren't "property" either. This is not the usual position but it is a defensible one.
Well it comes down to your definition of property. I think that property is an abstraction to begin with. And anyhow, isn't a corporation an abstraction? Do you dispute that a corporation can be property?
The alleged similarities between domain names and trademarks, IMHO, serve more to confuse the issues than clarify them. You can register the same trademark as someone else, as long as the two don't compete directly.
The issue isn't competition. I cannot open Coca Cola drycleaning. The issue is likelihood of confusion. Nevertheless, I didn't mean to claim that domain names and trademarks are in all senses the same. I claimed only that they are both abstractions and both property according to international law.
--- Intellectual "property" is to property as fool's gold is to gold.
I am personally glad to live in a world where I can buy Breyer's ice cream and be reasonably certain that it was made by the Breyer's corporation.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:1)
I can try to touch it, but that may be dangerous. It is properly isolated. It may need renewal once in a while, but so does my food if I keep it too long in the fridge.
Apart from that I am happy with my batteries and I would love to sell you some intellectual property some day, this sample being free.
Re:Domain names are not property (Score:1)
They got what they deserved. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, I for one am glad to see this kind of ruling. Companies should not just expect to have a domain name handed over to them because they think they have rights to it.
Unfortunately, strong-arm techniques such as pending litigation or going to the registrar (lets not forget when Network Solutions gave away ownership of personal domains a few years back to companies who demanded them) often win out, especially against personal/small business sites who wouldn't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to defend themselves.
Both of these cases were clearly a show of insolence by these companies, and for once, karma bit them in the arse.
domain name != web site ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
[Nestle] complained that Pro Fiducia Treuhand, a financial and management consulting firm with some 40 employees, had no legitimate claim on the Maggi.com domain and that it had registered and used the address in bad faith because, after five years, the company had not made use of the domain for a Web site.
Lawyers for Aspen Grove argued that, "by continuing to use the domain name without offering any or little content or any legitimate business use, (Clark) has confused (Aspen Grove's) prospective clients and business partners and has diluted the value of (its) trademark and reputation."
That stuff worries me. I personally have two domains that don't have any hosts, just MX records for personal email. I fully expect someday some company to come along and somehow claim trademark infringement from a non-existent web site.
So does that mean I should go ahead and put up a web site with infringing material so they can sue me easier?
This is like saying if you get mail at McDonald's Avenue, you are a trademark infringer, and doubly so because you aren't running a hamburger stand!
Kudos to the opposing lawyers and WIPO (that acronym always makes me chuckle when I say it out loud) for blasting that stupid notion. But I still fear that someday I'll have to deal with this bullshit even though my domains were first registered 7 years ago, just because some idiot wants the domain and can't deal with the fact that he doesn't have it.
Re:domain name != web site ..... (Score:1)
Anyways I just wanted to say that the legal argument about "lack-of-web-presence" is complete BS and I'm glad that the WIPO saw through it.
I just wonder what the outcome would be had Mr. Maggi not stepped forward, or the AspenGroves family waited to register (innocently) after the SW company's IPO?
Re:domain name != web site ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Put up a web page that says "This domain is for email purposes". Then include a web form for sending you email.
Does too! (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, sorry... the point is, these are unfortunately interchangable words in modern English. Lucky us for getting the right decision (for once.) But man oh man do I hope you don't put up a http as these other folks are suggesting. Don't legitimize it!
If you get letters from lawyers complaining about them, reply that the administrater can only be contacted at webmaster@your.disputed.domain and give you evidence you're actually using the things.
I would also hope that you record your McDonald's avenue analogy, along with all your other thoughts on the issue now, in case some jackass does decide to sue you. Who knows? Maybe educating a judge will actually effect a change in the way we all live, and put you next to ESR in the anals of making my computer a better place to live!
My apologies if this isn't coherant - I should've got to sleep about seven hours ago!
You mean "annals"? (Score:2, Funny)
Right, I know you were tired when you wrote that, but I'd appreciate it if you kept ESR away from my anal nonetheless. Thanks.
-Legion
Re:domain name != web site ..... (Score:2)
The DNS namespace belongs to the public. IMHO, people who use up names without legitimate cause don't deserve to have those public resources.
Re:domain name != web site ..... (Score:2)
That's could be impossible to prove, though. As long as a domain name points to a valid DNS server, you can't really tell how it's being used. There's no obligation for the domain name itself, without a hostname, to point to a valid server. It's possible that the fictional domain erasmus.invalid lacks any records, while foo.erasmus.invalid is a regular host.
There's also no obligation for a user to host publically available services. Just because there's no web or mail server running on foo.erasmus.invalid doesn't mean I can't ssh into it to, say, play Nethack with a bunch of friends. The less public services I run, the less likely someone is to remotely root my machine and do an 'rm -rf /'.
In addition to the time and effort of reinstalling, I'd be really
annoyed if it made me lose a character that had just cleared the
castle and looked very ascension-worthy.
Michael's commentary... (Score:1)
What? On Slashdot? You mean there's been situations where we *haven't* been amazed by the audacity of "The Man"?
But really...kudos to the WIPO for finally getting something right. Nestle had no claim on that site at all. I've never even *heard* of the Maggi brand. Must be a Swiss thing...
Re:Michael's commentary... (Score:2, Informative)
What about fines? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about NamePlanet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh...and for the record, Wellings isn't my last name, but they ALSO own a domain with my last name. I ought to sue.
Re:What about NamePlanet? (Score:2, Insightful)
business as usual... but changing. (Score:2)
Surprised by their audaciousness? No.
Interesting how just about anyone that has ever re-financed a house, had to deal with insurance companies or has friends in corporate law knows instinctively that large multinational corporations can be vile. They have no problem being as dirty as it takes to win whatever it is they deem important to their interests. We know this, as we are big boys and girls.
But there is a whole new paradigm out there, successful geeks in positions of power that can arbitrate and dictate to the old guard of business. This still fascinates me. Even companies like Xerox and IBM had been toadying to the wall street/ Madison Avenue spirit of post-WWII business acumen since forever, so as that when the new school of geek economy was coming up the ranks they were perceived as aliens.
I don't even want to get into the whole old/new economy thing. Or how companies like Intel and HP blended the two models to be jaugernauts. I just get a strange thrill whenever i see the old school tide smash into the new school sea walls. (once upon a time problems like this would be handled at a country club with big business always winning, just look at how "fair" the FCC was/is at brokering bandwidth to the "public".)
Every time it happens the status que is forced to re-examine itself. How bad can that be?
Re:business as usual... but changing. (Score:1)
I doubt very much that these "geeks" are completely altruistic. Geeks play FPS games, and fantasise about goblins and shit (LOTR if you don't believe me). They like fake tits on their fake chics at trade shows. I for one, would be a complete sonofabitch given an inch of influence and power (think cocaine and hookers 24/7
I have a sneaky suspicion that the folks at ICANN, WIPO and other internet regulatory bodies are academic/business people who perform nobly enough but are very intimately involved in their own financial affairs and those of colleagues.
Aren't most oversight commitees, boards and coalitions made up of like-minded people? Their purpose is to make more money and consolidate their influence.
Last I heard, Murray-Gell-Mann (Nobel laureate for Physics and member of the Los Alamos Group) was a chairman/advisor/stockholder of some fiber-optic broadband provider.
Just a tea party?
Re:business as usual... but changing. (Score:1)
Re:business as usual... but changing. (Score:2)
Now I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm, now I wonder why that is...
Oh, wait, corporations have more money than ordinary shmoes. I knew there was a simple reason!
(sigh)
-Kasreyn
CyberSquatting (Score:2, Interesting)
The new law's evident flaws allow people to exploit it in such a way as to steal a web-domain from someone. Aswell as this, people who buy domains of famous people's names etc. will always get away with it. I cannot remember the URL but there's a site which someone bought because a new company was coming out named this but when faced with court precedings, he researched the name of the company. He found out that there was a rare breed of chicken with the same name as the company and so he made a website about that type of chicken.
I was quite shocked to hear of a case whereby someone registered a domainname which was the name of a famous person and put a fan-site at it. The person who registered the domain name was forced to hand over the domain and the expesive hosting he'd paid for to the famous person. I just talked to a friend about this and they told e that there's still no website at the domain.
I think the next poll should be about abolishing the idiotic "CyberSquatting" laws.
this quote was too good to pass up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Excuse me? just because it is a
Is slashdot.com a commercial site?
(or am I mistaken on this?)
It is like saying if you buy a sports car and don't drive it like a sports car you should get a ticket other wise (because sports cars, next to motorcycles, prolly get more tickets than your average station wagon.)
Is this the way the legal mind works?
So, if a "lawyer tazer" is invented, we have to use it, or else we will be sued?
or
Yes, a hammer is meant to hammer in nails, but you'll be in deep trouble if you should *dare* pull a nail out.
Gotta love "Catch-22's" like this.
Amusing in a sad/ironic/silly way.
I suppose if the owner gave the domain over to Nestle it would technically be "The Gift of the Maggi"?
Re:this quote was too good to pass up... (Score:2)
Slashdot.com is a redirect to slashdot.org, for lazy people who only think in .com terms.
Boycotting Nestle (Score:1, Interesting)
- my Nestle Boycott page [danny.oz.au]
- good backgrounder on baby food issues [ibfan.org]
Danny.My Friend wins dispute (Score:5, Informative)
Earlier this year he received a binder with 5 inches of documents, containing the complaint that the American Film Marketing Association [afma.com] had submitted to WIPO to try to take his domain.
This caught Andy completely unawares, and unlike the AFMA, he did not have the benefit of expensive legal counsel to prepare his case - and neither did he have much time to prepare it.
One of andy's responses was to put up www.shameontheafma.com [shameontheafma.com] to publicize the case and elicit public support.
I think it was one of the most difficult experiences Andy has been through but in the end he won - that is, he won the right to keep that which was his in the first place.
Read Andy's statement about his victory [shameontheafma.com].
Perhaps Andy can take some small comfort from the fact that the AFMA paid their legal stuff likely hundreds of dollars an hour to harass him this way, money which they entirely wasted.
Andy does internet consulting by the way [hasse.com].
Media companies (Score:2)
Now the AFMA has joined the cause. I read everything at Andy Hasse's site - very interesting - and it's quite clear that AFMA was using strongarm tactics like the other ***A's. Andy Hasse had been using afm.com since 1996 but AFMA thought they were entitled to the domain "just because." What's worse, AFMA was already in bed with WIPO and was apparently hoping to use that stature for their gain. I'm glad they got slapped on the wrist.
Who's next? Why do these companies think they're entitled to the world, just because they make movies or records? Is there some god-given eminence that comes with such a business, that I'm not aware of? I'm sorry, ***A's, but the last movie I paid money to see at the theater was Rush Hour (the original). You can start up ten more various media Associations and it won't make a bit of difference in my book, until one of them demonstrates that they value the _consumer_ as much as they value their bottom line. If that day comes, that company is who'll get my money.
Ever since these associations have been showing their ignorance, I've avoided the theaters and I've been getting my movies on Showtime. I get the same product, in the comfort of my own home, included in a price I'm already paying (for cable), and my popcorn only costs $0.99; who cares if it takes awhile to get the movies.
I see no reason to support stupid companies and stupid organizations. MPAA and AFMA can go fuck themselves.
Shaun
Life shows where Art gets its inspiration (Score:2)
Where's the Spanking? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article states that Nestle was "spanked" hard by the WIPO arbitrators, but the only negative consequence mentioned was a tongue lashing, equivalent to, "Bad Nestle! No cookie for you!"
Is that what constitutes a severe retribution from the WIPO board?
Re:Where's the Spanking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the Spanking? (Score:1)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe not forever, but invalidate it for a couple of months. A real punitive action for trying to misuse the system.
Personally, one organization shouldn't really need more than one domain name. Maybe if we restricted organizations to a small amount of domains, we wouldn't have these problems.
Re:Where's the Spanking? (Score:2)
>Personally, one organization shouldn't really need more than one domain name. Maybe if we restricted organizations to a small amount of domains, we wouldn't have these problems.
I completely agree. nothing wrong with m1.bmw.de, m3.bmw.de etc..it's clear to everyone, and leads to less trouble.
//rdj
Silicon Image (Score:1, Interesting)
Silicon Image recently pulled a swift one. After basically presenting false testimony to the arbitrators, the people who owned the siliconimage.com took legal steps to thwart their success with WIPO arbitrators. Silicon Image sued the domain-name holders and took them to federal court. In the mean-time the domain name was frozen because of pending legal action. Just before they were to show up in front of the judge, Silicon Image dropped the suit, called Network Solutions and said there was no pending legal action and registered the domain.
This has got to be the slimiest thing I have seen. Apparently even the judge is furious but to get this fixed means huge dollars and the previous domain name holders are finacially strapped.
I personally know the previous siliconimage.com domain name holders and they are nice people.
This is yet another example of how what is right is irrelevant and the one who has the most money is allways right.
If there is anything we can do, let me know.
Coffee (Score:3, Funny)
May I offer a solution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Anything with a .com is for commercial purposes. Anything without a .com is for everyone else.
Non-.coms leave the .coms alone and the .coms won't fuck with the others. Problem solved?
WIPO.org.uk believe WIPO.org are corrupt (Score:2)
It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization panelist judge.
Every common word is trademarked - each word many times over.
By giving trademarks priority, even without this solution - they violate First Amendment.
ICANN, the United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization know the solution.
I have been communicating with USPTO, US DoC and UK Patent Office - none deny my assertions.
The authorities have been using lies and propaganda;
As example, ask them to deny this:
THOUSANDs of new open TLDs will not solve any problem - even if every one has 'Sunrise Period'.
It will not solve 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or stop anybody 'passing off'.
Also, as an example on Sunrise, thousands of trademarks using word 'Apple' have no guarantee of being able to use name.
Apple computers will still protect and make claim to every Apple.[anything] - even though they share word with 727 others in the USA alone (plus all those in 200+ countries).
Simple Solution:
With new closed TLD of
apple.record.uk.reg OR apple.computer.uk.reg?
Yes - I know you can read and it is totally obvious.
No 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or 'passing off' there then.
dot REG acts as certificate of authentication and directory.
The golden solution to identify the source of goods or services.
You would think it every trademarks dream - except for those big businesses that use their trademark to unlawfully claim dominance over others.
The label or tag that is impossible to copy - the ultimate for those against counterfeit and fraud.
If you can use the telephone, then you can certainly use dot REG.
Marketing could still use apple.com - just redirected to
The simple solution is name.class.country.reg
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]
Re:WIPO.org.uk believe WIPO.org are corrupt (Score:2)
Apple Software: www.apple.computer.uk.reg
Computerised Apple Sorting Ltd: www.apple.computer.uk.reg
Need I go on?
Re:WIPO.org.uk believe WIPO.org are corrupt (Score:2)
You have shown you know nothing about how trademarks are registered.
Anything that would cause 'consumer confussion' with Apple Computers, would not be allowed registered by the Patent Office.
Trademarks are quite a simple concept to programmers, such as ourselves.
They have just 4 attributes - name, class, country and identifier.
Chris, I see you are learning C at the moment - taught my friends son this when he was about 10/11 years old. He started selling firewall programs when he was 13/14. What's taking you so long
Further - classes can be broken down (Score:2)
WIPO knows which sub-class would cause no confussion with others.
sue your parents (Score:1)
I mean, what kind of free thinking people actually think they can use my name....