Domain Registrars Not Legally Responsible for Domain Names 58
mike_markley writes " CNN has an article that talks about a suit that Lockheed Martin filed against NSI over a domain that allegedly infringed upon Lockheed's copyrights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that NSI wasn't responsible for trademark infringements such as this. " Good - the Court's basis was recognizing the need for registrants to move with speed, unlike the trademark office.
Exceptions (Score:2)
And Cybersquatters... (Score:1)
As a DNS administrator, I've got my own personal problems with cybersquatters ("We need 45 zone files added *today!*"), as all it does is gum up the works, waste time, and flush more money (not mine) down the toilet. I know for a fact that the bulk of them are unused, as well.
For that matter, I'm waiting for one group to drop a domain that they've been squatting on for years now, as they're certainly doing nothing with it. These people are like the used car salesmen of the internet (no offense to those good-hearted used car salesmen out there.) in that they're taking something and selling it for far more than it's worth. Not to mention that it's already tainted goods by the time the squatter sells it off.
I doubt I can pull up a decent example of a true squatter, as most of the cases I've seen that aren't on my own personal crusade are small companies that are fighting off a lawsuit to preserve their own business, which of course, has the misfortune of sharing their name with some huge corporation with money to burn. (Yes that was a run on sentence. I'll fix it when I'm paid to write comments here.)
Suffice it to say, when you go to www.widgetco.com, and it doesn't exist, but the domain is registered, you probably won't head back there again looking for WidgetCo. When WidgetCo finally buys back that domain (for a lot more than $70, I might add), it's already too late, as no one really plans on heading to that URL, and most of us will have bookmarked www.thewidgetcompany.com or something like that.
That level of cybersquatting sickens me, and if the overall DNS system were better established for a less-than-ideal society, this would be much less of a problem. Unfortunately, NSI's attitude of taking the money, and asking questions later, if at all, has probably aided in the deconstruction of the useful WWW. Personally, I'm all for the tm subdomain for country codes as a result. Too bad it probably won't take here in the US, where every company needs "Global Market Penetration" as well as a few hundred other buzzwords that are little more than pathetic excuses to shave off two characters from a domain.
Christopher Kalos
Re:Sorry, had to try (Score:1)
Then I'll be eligible to moderate... buwahahaha... I mean, uh, so I can encourage thoughtful posts.
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
Frankly I think the best option would be to get rid of all the TLDs that aren't country designations. I'll be generous and allow internic to retain a
Unfortunately this is never going to happen -> too much fiddling about required (not to mention all the lusers who'd get confused!), but still I can always dream
Improper use of trademarks as domain names (Score:1)
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
No.
Not unless they have secured unambiguous trademark rights in every independant nation of the world, as well as in every sector of the economy in those nations that make such distinctions (as does US trademark law). If they do that, then *maybe* they could assert such a claim.
Otherwise, they have no more compelling right to the name than does some guy named Zolar Kodak who runs "Kodak's Canoe Rentals" in the middle of the jungle of Booga-Booga Land. The principle of first-come-first-served is the only reasonable way for the system to operate. Certainly a corporation with the resources of Kodak (the photography-related one) could probably arrange to come to a mutually acceptable resolution with Mr. Z. Kodak if they cared enough about a domain name which he had registered, but suggesting that they have superior rights to the name because they are a large US corporation and his is a small Boogan corporation is utterly preposterous and demonstrates an astonishing degree of US-centrism.
- Paul
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
No.
Trademark law in the Real World is very specifically limited in geographic scope. It has to be. There is no legal authority that every nation of the world is obliged to respect. The DNS namespace is inherently global in scope. Shall we hold it accountable to the trademarks registered in every country in the world, many of which overlap and contradict each other? Shall we decide that one country's system of registered trademarks should be definitive world-wide? (If so, then whose? Russia's? France's? Iraq's? The United States'?)
No, we shouldn't. It is inherently inappropriate to apply trademark law to the DNS namespace, and any attempt to do so will be unjust, arbitrary, and painfully unworkable.
- Paul
Re:Improper use of trademarks as domain names (Score:1)
Sure is. Seems to me that if a company uses for its domain name an isolated trademark out of its relevant context, they are responsible for the dilution of their own trademark.
- Paul
Re:Trademarks (Score:2)
In any case, I feel a lot better about made-up words being trademarks -- people's names and common words/phrases shouldn't be removed from the language just to protect some corporate interests!
--
Re:Good thing... (Score:1)
On a side note: It wouldn't be too difficult for the NSI to check a database of uncontested trademarks before issuing a domain to an individual, and this step could have keep NSI from the expense of lawyers every time a major company decides a domain name violates their trademark. Such a database wouldn't be very difficult to create/maintain, either - just look at the DNS. No, they couldn't check every trademark - but they would probably catch enough cyber-squatters to deter the practice.
It is possible (Score:1)
I also agree that they do not have legal power to settle the disputes. That doesn't mean, however, that they should not be liable for ignoring Lockheed's complaint and at least attempting to make a decision. They could possibly learn to do trademark decisions (non-binding on the parties of course, but can filter out obvious infringement).
Re:domain names should parallel the real world (Score:2)
Oh well, too late.
--
Re:Easy solution to trademark problems (Score:2)
If you are going to enforce trademarks at all, why restrict it to just a slice of cyberspace? The motivations for enforcing trademarks still apply to the
Re:Cyberpiracy Act (Score:1)
Re:Easy solution to trademark problems (Score:1)
Re:Senate law (Score:1)
Re:Easy solution to trademark problems (Score:1)
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
Should there be a free-for-all for www.generalelectric.com?
Granted, there may be a General Electric Company of Hendersonville, Indiana. But, when I type www.generalelectric.com in New York, Altanta, or Seattle, it is more likely that I intend to get GE than the small shop in Indiana.
These sorts of disputes are precisely what trademark law addresses in the "real world." Since these disputes also occur on the Net, don't the same arbitration procedures seem to apply?
Re:Figures (Score:1)
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
I believe there is a trademark is a valuable commodity - particularly in cyberspace. So, the DNS namespace should be structured to protect that commodity.
It is not responsible or sufficient to say "we're not playing by your rules." Regional authorities regulate all sorts of activities of their citizenry on the Internet. The DNS namespace should be structured to respect those authorities and the protect the commodity.
Sorry, had to try (Score:2)
Seriously it does figure that NSI wasn't held responsible. Why should they? They're not the ones who are doing the copyright infringement. The person who is hosting the website is, thus go after them!
Of course I know why they dont go after them. The person with the site is probably just some regular joe schmoe who doesn't have much money. NSI on the other hand is a real company with real money, so it makes sense to sue the people you have a chance on actually getting something other than the URL from.
Trademarks (Score:5)
But, it doesn't address the underlying problem -- trademarks and domain names don't mix. Paramount, for example, has a trademark on the letter Q. Don't use that in your domain name! In fact, basically every word you can think of is someone's trademark. If that means that they have the exclusive rights to any domains containing that word, the whole system is going to break.
I'm not sure what the fix is: trademarks are a pretty good basic idea. But they were meant to work within specific areas of commerce, and be limited geographically. It doesn't scale up to a national level, let alone a worldwide one -- and it gets even worse when companies of totally different types are in competition for the same ".com" domains.
(A side note -- I don't mean to be pedantic, but trademark is very different from copyright. The
--
NSI not responsible..... (Score:1)
When you think about it, if they had to screen every name for possible copyright (et al.) violations, then nobody would ever get a domain name... we'd all be asking for static IPs and advertising them like phone numbers!(For you free foobar... dial 192.168.6.9. extension
Personally, I believe that the person registering the name should be the only one responsible for copyright infringment.
As for name dispute resolution... that's a different matter
Bravo (Score:1)
Show them the money (Score:2)
names, said Ronald L. Johnston, lawyer for Network Solutions.
Yup, This is all about the money. Of course NSI like cybersquatters. Squatters not only directly pay NSI for all the names they gobble up, but indirectly pay them by getting companies who really want them to gobble up every permutation of their precious trademark.
It's a double win for our favorite DNS registrar.
NSI often sued (Score:2)
This is related to the
Senate law (Score:3)
Apropos to this, HR1225 was up for discussion in the U.S. House today. If it's not a law now, it will be very soon. This is a law with bi-partisan support that establishes trade-marked names and phrases in domain names as falling under similar, if not the same, rules as trade marks in any other published form.
Personally, what I fear the most about this bill, after having heard a few congressmen talk today, was the perspective these representatives are taking. Their concept of names and other trade-marked items as possitions that others are not allowed to have, though highly entrenched in the current system, seems so much more of a broken view to me than the notion that trade marks are more of a formation of identity, so that unathorized use of trademarks is a forging of identity and misleading of consumers rather than appropriation of property.I'm curious to hear if the practical effects of current laws could be the same under this newer view point, as it would certainly seem to make future changes easier.
-hm
Of course it's not the registrar'r job (Score:2)
Re:Bravo (Score:2)
Whether or not NSI likes it, they have taken up the huge (and lucrative) job of coordinating the registration of most of the domain names on the Internet. Most registration goes through them.
NSI is the party that could most cheaply make a decision about whether a serious trademark violation occurs and solve the problem. If, for example, Lockheed can show NSI that it holds several registered "Skunk Works" trademarks, NSI can "hold" ownership of the domain or block registration until a court decides. NSI claims that the registration process is entirely automated. That is true, but as soon as Lockheed has brought the issue to NSI's attention, NSI can no longer claim that there is nothing that it can do. There is at least some degree of fault here.
The alternative (chosen by the court in this case) is to force Lockheed to go straight to court and let the infringer keep the site in the meantime. Given the judicial backlog that exists right now, it is probable that it would be some time before a court would make a decision. In the end, for an obvious infringement case, the court will have spent many taxpayer dollars to reach a decision that the NSI might have made quickly on its own.
The main problem with this argument is that the NSI would basically become the court and use up just as many judicial resources. But, keep in mind that this would be a very specialized "NSI court" that dealt only with Internet domains and trademarks. Plus, maybe the courts could decide to hold NSI liable only if they completely ignore a trademark holder's plea for help (the current policy). There is no reason that the NSI couldn't act as a filter to solve the "obvious" trademark problems, while the slower and more expensive courts are reserved for the "tough" problems.
nevermind my response (Score:1)
Good thing, too (Score:2)
The whole suing back and forth for silly things like this, and trying to place the blame on people who are so obviously not responsible for these type of things is just inane, and one of the major reasons why people in other countries laugh at the U.S. in^H^HJustice system.
".. I like pork!"
domain names should parallel the real world (Score:3)
It seems to me that if there is a dispute over some trademark and both parties have a claim to the trademark in some domain, they should both be required to disambiguate and neither should retain the plain name.
So, instead of a dispute over "apple.com", both the record company and the computer company might have to pick more specific domains: "apple-computer.com" and "apple-records.com", with "apple.com" unassigned or possibly a directory of companies with "apple" in their name.
Sometimes, the distinguishing identifier would not (just) be the product but the geographic area. In tat case, the ".us" could be used, or it could get added to the domain name: "acme-paints-nyc.com", or "acme-paints.nyc.ny.us".
The key point is that neither party in a dispute should own the ambiguous domain name and both should be required to disambiguate. Note also that this does not require any technical or administrative infrastructure; the disambiguated domain names don't need to be in a hierarchy or follow any particular naming convention, they simply must distinguish the disputed trademarks clearly.
NSI Doesn't control or monitor? (Score:1)
monitor the millions of names it approves
Then why is Network Solutions currently being sued [slashdot.org] for restricting the registration of so called "dirty" domains?
Re:Of course it's not the registrar'r job (Score:1)
Cyberpiracy Act (Score:3)
The GNU [gnu.org] website reports that the House of Representatives is going to vote [gnu.org] on a bill that, if passed, is guaranteed to make us go through more of these nonsense lawsuits.
Why don't people realize that domain names were never intended to be identified with any sort of trademark? To refresh your memories, the domain name system was introduced so that we wouldn't have to remember awkward IP addresses. But it looks like this reason has been totally forgotten/ignored in the mad rush to "appropriate" a piece of the web.
I, for one, hate this attitude of rushing to register every damned domain that you can lay your hands on. Lots of these companies/trademark holders go on a wild spree, not only registering their trademark in all the TLDs (top level domains), but also registering all sorts of variations of their trademarks, including typographical errors, misspellings, etc. Most registrars actually encourage this! I am appalled. The .com domain has become totally corrupted with all sorts of websites that can hardly be described commercial. Same goes for the other TLDs.
Stop the trademark-domain crap already!
Sreeram.
Re:Bravo (Score:2)
They are not an arm of the government, and even though (or perhaps "especially since") the data gathered is under a government contract (from the executive branch, I might add), it is not their responsibility to adjudicate trademark disputes, but rather that of the judicial system. Whether or not the courts can handle the load is a different matter entirely, but NSI shouldn't be acting in the role of the judicial branch, since they are affiliated with the Dept of Commerce.
Besides, considering how much else they screw up, let's not suffer from the delusion that they're anywhere near capable enough to handle trademark disputes.
That's interesting, as NSI refused me (Score:1)
A friend and I were looking at different domain names after we saw what some of them were going for on ebay, and I found that fu*kme.com (The * is really a C, don't know how /. handles swears) had become available. So I figure, sure, that's gotta be worth something. I register it, then about 2 weeks later I get an email saying that NSI refused to register it! The actual email is below.
So, if NSI is not legally responsible for when certain names are registered, yet they can refuse on other grounds. While I'm no lawyer, that seems a little odd.
"Network Solutions doesn't review the names that people are trying to register," Johnston said. "This is critical to the growth of the commercial Internet."
If NSI doesn't review the names, then how is this explained?
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
A little thought experiment: Consider Kodak, a well established business. If I were Joe Consumer and saw a sign on a store that said "Kodak products sold here," it would almost universally (certainly within the US and, I would venture, most of the world) cause me to expect that I can pick up Kodak brand photographic products inside that store. A trademark protects that association as a key asset - and, it really is an asset.
Shouldn't Kodak be allowed to translate that identifying mark to the Internet? When you go to your web browser and type in "www.kodak.com", don't you expect to find information on the very same company in illustration above?
Further, doesn't Kodak have some rights to prevent others from capitalizing on a name reputation for purposes other than to the benefit of the company that earned it?
Granted, there are issues (the 'Q' illustration you used is a good one). However, to believe the slate is clean with repect to domain names is myopic; there needs to be some emforcability of trademarks in cyberspace.
A problem. (Score:2)
It used to be that you pretty much had to follow the guidelines with regards to domain registration.
.com = commercial entity
.org = non-commercial organization
.net = part of the network infrastructure.
And you had to be pretty much honest about it (or at least, most people were honest without being forced to).
The problem, I think, is a compound one.
1) The Internic did not enforce these guidelines. People were permitted to register whatever the hell they wanted.
2) The Internic did not verify any contact information or business information. I'm willing to bet that a GREAT number of domain registrations are fraudulent (as in, the information given is false and misleading)
3) The Internic took people's MONEY for this. So.. they can't very well go back and say 'Your domains have been revoked because they are fraudulent registrations' when they accepted your money in the first place!
Also... *NOTE*
REGARDING INTERNIC.CA
Internic.ca, unless someone informs me otherwise, is a SCAM. (or at least, very misleading.)
The way to register CA domains is described at www.cdnnet.ca. You contact one of the regional registrars DIRECTLY by mailing them the appropriate forms. It does *NOT* cost any money. (there are strict guidelines as to what you can and cannot register, and as to how many domains per entity you can have (one)) Every canadian can have their own domain, for free.
INTERNIC.CA makes their page look very official. THey charge a $70CDN non-refundable FEE simply to SEND your registration to the registrar. They have absolutely NO say in whether or not you can ahve that domain. In other words, although they DO state in the fine print that this is all they do for you, they are NOT actually providing you with ANY kind of service WHATSOEVER> The exact same form you send them, you could send directly to a registrar yourself! It has been this way for a decade.. and has not changed to my knowledge.
I really think that the
Re:Easy solution to trademark problems (Score:1)
The US gov't is proposing some legislation regarding children's privacy online. Great idea!
Problem: US law only applies in one country last I checked.
Now, were it an issue for me, I'd gladly follow the guidelines, however, because I have a
Who could stop a czech company from owning a
Easy solution to trademark problems (Score:3)
- Only US trademark holders can register in this domain
- It's part of the
Re:NSI not responsible..... (Score:1)
The problem is, they don't even check to see if you provided false information or not.
Yet they take your money.
Re:Trademarks (Score:1)
For example, I am looking for a product called FoobarToTheMax made by Whizzo Inc. I then enter www.whizzo.com in my browser. Bummer, not found. Okay, let's try www.whizzoinc.com. Voilà, the page loads. But what's that? I am stranded on the Whizzo Furniture home page. But someone there was kind enough to put a link to www.whizzo.co.uk on that page followed by the words "In case you were looking for Whizzo Inc, Maker of the famous FoobarToTheMax(tm) product, klick this link." One click later I'm there. (Needless to say that also Whizzo.co.uk has a link back to whizzoinc.com for the chair- and tablewise impaired).
That's what I call cooperative networking. Did either of these companies have a problem with their 'sister' in a different market segment? Nah. On the contrary, I now know them both and think of them as gentle, cooperative and sensible netizens.
Wouldn't this same trademark 'war' also apply to phone numbers? Would the operator picking up the blower at 1-800-2whizzo sue me or whizzo.co.uk for dialling the wrong number? No, usually they are friendly and explain what probably went wrong.
So, marketeers of the world, unite. Recognize other people's efforts and struggles and invest your excess money in making your products better than feeding it to brainless trademark lawyers. Instead, have others with a similar name put a link to your page on theirs and offer them the same favour.
I am, of course, in no way conveying that a company has no vital interest or right to protect its products. But our alphabet has about 25 letters (depending on where you live) and sometimes unintentional homonyms can happen. But a company that trademarks a letter 'Q' (and maybe even 'q' or 'cue' or 'queue') makes itself a fool and cannot be taken seriously.