DOMAIN NAME HELP
Damon
Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my questions.
1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of this
such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have to buy
all variants to stop someone also using it.
2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a company that
so far isnt online.
3) If I buy a domain name but do not use the people I purchased from as my
server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
4)Does anyone know of a reputable company they have bought a domain name of
that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
5)Is a domain name purchased for life or do you have to renew each year for
a fee
thanks for all the help
Mark Stronge
"Damon" <xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:83jqg4$rj2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi there
> Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my questions.
> 1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of this
> such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have to buy
> all variants to stop someone also using it.
You simply go to www.freeserve.net and do a search for a free domain name.
If the name is
free then you can buy it. There is no difference between ENGLAND and england
I think.
> 2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a company that
> so far isnt online.
No, if you can get a domain before them then you can sell it to them for
more money
if you play your cards right.
> 3) If I buy a domain name but do not use the people I purchased from as my
> server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
I'm in the middle of transferring hosting to freeserve but it would be
easier to geta
domain name from freeserve. Contact freeserve domain names on 0800 542 5454
for the answers
to all your questions.
> 4)Does anyone know of a reputable company they have bought a domain name
of
> that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
> 5)Is a domain name purchased for life or do you have to renew each year
for
> a fee
I think you have to renew it every 2 years.
Pedt Scragg
<xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Hi there
>Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my questions.
>1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of this
>such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have to buy
>all variants to stop someone also using it.
If you buy a .co.uk domain then there is nothing to stop anyone from
purchasing the .com .net .org .cc .whatever name. However, they would
not be able to purchase a domain name in capitals exactly the same as
the domain name is unique whether you choose to capitalise it or not.
>2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a company
>that so far isnt online.
Do you mean a domain name on behalf of a Company that is not online yet?
If so then there is no problem, you can register the name as you wish.
Do you mean buying a domain name 'on spec' in the hope you can sell it
on to them ? This can be where it gets murky. I wouldn't if I were you.
Although it's not illegal to do so, the Co. could be concerned about
'passing off', trademarks, trading names etc. and you could get a lot of
hassle.
>3) If I buy a domain name but do not use the people I purchased from as
>my server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
First of all there are two ways to use a domain name:
a) Buy it and have the ISP DNS point to commercial web space or
b) Buy it and use web and email redirection to your personal space -
this is often provided by third party resellers of domain names.
Depends what you want really. If you are 'testing the waters' then a
decent redirection service is certainly cheaper but you must remember
to register the 'real' location of the web site as most of the
redirection services use 'frames redirection' which is usually the
kiss of death to search engines.
Personally, I think the FS offering of domain names and web/email
forwarding is vastly overpriced. You'd be cheaper, from my quick
calculations, using paid commercial webspace with another ISP.
Be wary of those offering 'free' registration as they tie you to
their ISP and have a serious charge if you want to move the domain -
some also reserve the right to 'place adverts on the site'.
>4)Does anyone know of a reputable company they have bought a domain
>name of that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
Peter Gradwell at <URL: http://www.gradwell.com> has a good service and
one I've used. Dave Eastabrook <URL: http://www.minehost.co.uk> is
setting up a service and, whilst I have not used Dave as yet, I have
a high regard for him and would recommend him on the strength of this.
I have also used NetNames <URL: http://www.netnames.co.uk> in the past
and have found their service exemplary for redirection as with
WebFactory at <URL: http://www.webfactory.co.uk>. You might also wish
to try <URL: http://www.design-web.co.uk> whom I have spoken to about
forwarding a series of domains for a client and am confident that they
know what they are talking about.
>5)Is a domain name purchased for life or do you have to renew each year
>for a fee
First two years come with the price. Thereafter you'll have to pay
Nominet [.*.uk] each year or InterNIC [.com .org .net]. You may also
need to pay the redirection service some pennies as well to continue
the redirection.
--
Pedt Scragg
http://signpost-design.co.uk/
Signpost Web Design, Wrecsam, North Wales
Duncan Clarke
>
> "Damon" <xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:83jqg4$rj2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have to buy
> > all variants to stop someone also using it.
>
> If the name is
> free then you can buy it.
Aren't they still charging silly money for this though?
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 1 day 1:17 - load: 1.50 1.27 1.14
von...@my-deja.com
they were only $35 for two years
In article <83jtdb$r5a$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Mark Stronge" <ma...@ukgospelmusic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Damon" <xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:83jqg4$rj2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Hi there
> > Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my
questions.
> > 1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of
this
> > such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have
to buy
> > all variants to stop someone also using it.
>
> You simply go to www.freeserve.net and do a search for a free domain
name.
> If the name is
> free then you can buy it. There is no difference between ENGLAND and
england
> I think.
>
> > 2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a
company that
> > so far isnt online.
>
> No, if you can get a domain before them then you can sell it to them
for
> more money
> if you play your cards right.
>
> > 3) If I buy a domain name but do not use the people I purchased from
as my
> > server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
>
> I'm in the middle of transferring hosting to freeserve but it would be
> easier to geta
> domain name from freeserve. Contact freeserve domain names on 0800 542
5454
> for the answers
> to all your questions.
>
> > 4)Does anyone know of a reputable company they have bought a domain
name
> of
> > that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
>
> > 5)Is a domain name purchased for life or do you have to renew each
year
> for
> > a fee
>
> I think you have to renew it every 2 years.
>
> > thanks for all the help
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim Jackson
>
>"Damon" <xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:83jqg4$rj2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
[snip]
>> 2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a company
that
>> so far isnt online.
>
>No, if you can get a domain before them then you can sell it to them
for
>more money
>if you play your cards right.
Then just sit back and wait for the writ to arrive. It's called
cybersquatting, and the courts take a pretty dim view of it.
But why are you worried about the legality of this, if you're not
worried about the legality of your website with the copy of Dreamweaver,
and advertising the crack for it in this newsgroup? If I were
Macromedia, you'd already have a writ by now.
--
Tim Jackson
T...@winterbourne.freeserve.co.uk
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk/
(to reply direct, remove "ANTISPAM" from my address)
Tony Morgan
ourne.ANTISPAMfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>But why are you worried about the legality of this, if you're not
>worried about the legality of your website with the copy of Dreamweaver,
>and advertising the crack for it in this newsgroup? If I were
>Macromedia, you'd already have a writ by now.
Don't worry, SOFT and Software Crimeline already know. I hope he's not
also got any questionable porn on his PC when they come to take it
away... things could get considerably worse for him.
Some folks must be brain-dead!
It's a bit like a bank robber putting an advert in the Sun that he's
going to raid Barclays in Manchester at 11.00 AM on a certain date.
--
Tony Morgan http://www.atomor.com
Atomor Web Limited http://www.atomor.demon.co.uk
Fax: 01582 535838 to...@atomor.com
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>
>It's a bit like a bank robber putting an advert in the Sun that he's
>going to raid Barclays in Manchester at 11.00 AM on a certain date.
Wouldn't that be reasonably safe? People don't buy the Sun in order to
read the text, do they?
Tony Morgan
ourne.ANTISPAMfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>It's a bit like a bank robber putting an advert in the Sun that he's
>>going to raid Barclays in Manchester at 11.00 AM on a certain date.
>
>Wouldn't that be reasonably safe? People don't buy the Sun in order to
>read the text, do they?
Damon
Damon
The only one who is brain dead is the one thats shown his fax number
Duncan Clarke
> for
> >more money
> >if you play your cards right.
>
> Then just sit back and wait for the writ to arrive. It's called
> cybersquatting, and the courts take a pretty dim view of it.
What is illegal about buying something you know will be in demand, then
reselling it at a later date? If this were illegal, the stock market
would be in a bit of trouble.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 1 day 3:25 - load: 1.01 1.08 1.06
{$*!brymor!*$}
serve.co.uk> onThu, 23 Dec 1999 at 03:30:39, I noticed that Duncan
Clarke <dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> electronically wrote the
following
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Mark Stronge wrote in message <83jtdb$r5a$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> >
>> >No, if you can get a domain before them then you can sell it to them
>> for
>> >more money
>> >if you play your cards right.
>>
>> Then just sit back and wait for the writ to arrive. It's called
>> cybersquatting, and the courts take a pretty dim view of it.
>
>What is illegal about buying something you know will be in demand, then
>reselling it at a later date? If this were illegal, the stock market
>would be in a bit of trouble.
>
I agree - (someone registered brymor.co.uk last January 22nd. - my
birthday but it wasn't for me :( )
I don't think that the BBC can do anything about bbc.com which is a US
Company. It would be different if for example bbc.com tried to pass
themselves off as *the* BBC.
There have been loads of examples of people registering, for example,
trade marks or companies in other countries and then selling them when
the original "owner" wanted them. (Not a good example *but*, by
agreements, HMV is the trademark of different companies in different
parts of the world)
--
Brymor Web http://www.brymorweb.co.uk
Brymor- The Main Entrance http://www.morris4.demon.co.uk/
Highgate Cemetery http://www.highgatecemetery.co.uk/
SEASONS GREETINGS http://www.brymorweb.co.uk/xmas99.html
Public Key at http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9
Wandering Rogue
news:tonuoDAL...@atomor.demon.co.uk...
<SNIP>
> It's a bit like a bank robber putting an advert in the Sun that he's
> going to raid Barclays in Manchester at 11.00 AM on a certain date.
>
Not necessary Tony. The papers like The Sun and Mirror have stirred up a lot of
people over Y2K, so they are demanding *all* their money out in case banks
*lose* it. They have also printed details of branches carrying extra cash to
meet these irrational demands, consequently many branches have been robbed by
armed raiders during the last two weeks and staff/customers have been injured.
It's not funny!
The robber's don't need to advertise the tabloids have already done it for them.
--
...Rogue
www.wandering-rogue.fsnet.co.uk
He who speaks in riddles may be wise but he who speaks in clichés is always
stupid ...
--
...Rogue
www.wandering-rogue.fsnet.co.uk
He who speaks in riddles may be wise but he who speaks in clichés is always
stupid ...
Tim Jackson
>Reading freeserve.help.webspace
article<3861975F...@fuzzyhead.free
>serve.co.uk> onThu, 23 Dec 1999 at 03:30:39, I noticed that Duncan
>Clarke <dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> electronically wrote the
>following
>>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Stronge wrote in message <83jtdb$r5a$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>> >
>>> >No, if you can get a domain before them then you can sell it to
them
>>> for
>>> >more money
>>> >if you play your cards right.
>>>
>>> Then just sit back and wait for the writ to arrive. It's called
>>> cybersquatting, and the courts take a pretty dim view of it.
>>
>>What is illegal about buying something you know will be in demand,
then
>>reselling it at a later date? If this were illegal, the stock market
>>would be in a bit of trouble.
Buying something which is in demand and selling it at a later date isn't
always legal. Drug dealers buy and sell heroin. Dodgy market traders
buy and sell fake Chanel perfume, or cheap fizzy drinks labelled as
Champagne. Dodgy Internet traders buy domain names which rightfully
ought to be available for someone else, then try to sell them.
>
>I agree - (someone registered brymor.co.uk last January 22nd. - my
>birthday but it wasn't for me :( )
If they have a legitimate reason for wanting to use the name brymor, and
if that use wouldn't infringe your rights, then they are in the clear.
But if their reason was simply to extort money out of you, or to trade
on the back of your good name, you could sue them (if you felt it was
worth it).
>
>I don't think that the BBC can do anything about bbc.com which is a US
>Company. It would be different if for example bbc.com tried to pass
>themselves off as *the* BBC.
This is exactly the point. If someone has a legitimate reason for
wanting to register and use a particular domain name, that's fine. But
the English courts have taken a dim view of cybersquatters who don't
have a legitimate reason, and have extended the law relating to "passing
off" in order to clamp down on the practice.
The logic is that if the cybersquatter used the domain name, then it
would cause confusion and amount to passing off (the same as it
infringes Chanel's rights to pass off cheap perfume as the real thing).
But the courts have taken it a little bit further and said that the
cybersquatter is infringing the rights of the "true" owner of the name,
even if he hasn't actually used it.
There is a fine line here between the cybersquatter's position and the
position of a legitimate trader who happens to have the same name as the
BBC. In real life, it probably comes down to whether the judge approves
or disapproves of the way you are behaving.
>
>There have been loads of examples of people registering, for example,
>trade marks or companies in other countries and then selling them when
>the original "owner" wanted them.
There have also been loads of examples of legal action over such
matters. Of course, the outcome varies, depending on the law of the
country concerned, whether the plaintiff has an established reputation
in that country, etc.
Duncan Clarke
> >news:83jqg4$rj2$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> [snip]
>
> worried about the legality of your website with the copy of Dreamweaver,
> and advertising the crack for it in this newsgroup?
Just recieved from POL...
"We have traced and verified the account(s) that related to your
report. They have now been dealt with accordingly."
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 2 days 1:12 - load: 1.02 1.06 1.01
Duncan Clarke
>
> Buying something which is in demand and selling it at a later date isn't
> always legal. Drug dealers buy and sell heroin.
This is irrelevant, and the product being sold is illegal. Domain names
are not illegal.
> Dodgy market traders
> buy and sell fake Chanel perfume, or cheap fizzy drinks labelled as
> Champagne.
Slightly better example, but still irrelevant. Selling these products
is not illegal, unless you are fraudulently claiming that they are
originals, or if they are infringing on patents or copyrights. AFAIK,
domain names are subject to neither.
> Dodgy Internet traders buy domain names which rightfully
> ought to be available for someone else, then try to sell them.
THere is nothing wrong with this. As has been said, if you try to infer
that you are in some way connected to or affiliated with the original,
that is fraud, and irrelevant of the domain name used.
> If they have a legitimate reason for wanting to use the name brymor, and
> if that use wouldn't infringe your rights, then they are in the clear.
> But if their reason was simply to extort money out of you, or to trade
> on the back of your good name, you could sue them (if you felt it was
> worth it).
Indeed you are right. Extortion is illegal, as is fraud, but owning a
commodity that someone else wants is not. I could have quite legally
bought brymor.co.uk, then tried to sell it to Bryan. He could then
either agree to my price, or choose another domain name.
If I then put up a web site, and claimed to be Bryan, or represent him,
he could take legal action.
> If someone has a legitimate reason for
> wanting to register and use a particular domain name, that's fine.
Does Richard Branson have a 'legitimate reason' for having all of that
money, when I want some of it? Not really, but it is legally his, so I
have no claim on it, no matter how much I deserve it!
> But
> the English courts have taken a dim view of cybersquatters who don't
> have a legitimate reason, and have extended the law relating to "passing
> off" in order to clamp down on the practice.
If you own the domain, but don't put anything on it, or if you make it
clear that you do not represent the company they expected, how can
anyone complain?
I know there are a few domains I would love to have (skate.co.uk,
skate.org etc.) but have already been taken. A number of them have
little to no content on them, whereas my site has useful info on it for
skaters. No matter how much I complain, I have to either pay the
current owner their asking price, or find another domain that suits me.
It's just the way it is.
> The logic is that if the cybersquatter used the domain name, then it
> would cause confusion and amount to passing off (the same as it
> infringes Chanel's rights to pass off cheap perfume as the real thing).
> But the courts have taken it a little bit further and said that the
> cybersquatter is infringing the rights of the "true" owner of the name,
> even if he hasn't actually used it.
If the courts HAVE taken this further, it is stupid, and probably
against european law. It is very different to own something
(domain/cheap perfume) and to use it fraudulently.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 3 days 2:54 - load: 1.00 1.08 1.08
Tim Jackson
<38643737...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk>...
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Buying something which is in demand and selling it at a later date
isn't
>> always legal. Drug dealers buy and sell heroin.
>
>This is irrelevant, and the product being sold is illegal. Domain
names
>are not illegal.
But using one which infringes someone else's trade mark *is* illegal.
And the UK courts have held that just registering someone else's trade
mark as a domain name can amount to a threat of illegal trade mark
infringement or "passing off".
The "One In A Million" case which decided this is discussed at the
following URLs, amonst others:
http://lawmoney.oyster.co.uk/public/news/hotnews/news9807/news980731.1.h
tml
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19971201S0006
In this case, the defendants had no legitimate reason for registering
"bt.org", "marksandspencer.com" and other domain names, except that they
wanted to obtain money from the trade mark owners. It was held that, as
they hadn't actually started websites at these URLs, they hadn't caused
the trade mark owners any real damage. So they didn't have to pay
damages. But an injunction was entered against them, and they had to
pay GBP 65,000 in costs.
>> Dodgy market traders
>> buy and sell fake Chanel perfume, or cheap fizzy drinks labelled as
>> Champagne.
>
>Slightly better example, but still irrelevant. Selling these products
>is not illegal, unless you are fraudulently claiming that they are
>originals, or if they are infringing on patents or copyrights. AFAIK,
>domain names are subject to neither.
I agree it's a better example. But if you think that it's legal to sell
fake Chanel or fake Champagne, as long as you say that it's fake, you
are dead wrong. Legally, it's still a trade mark infringement, or
passing off, even if it's not fraud.
Domain names are subject to the law of trade marks and passing off,
rather than patents or copyright. Different branch of intellectual
property law. And there are undoubtedly legal rights in trade marks
like BT or Marks & Spencer.
>> Dodgy Internet traders buy domain names which rightfully
>> ought to be available for someone else, then try to sell them.
>
>THere is nothing wrong with this. As has been said, if you try to
infer
>that you are in some way connected to or affiliated with the original,
>that is fraud, and irrelevant of the domain name used.
See above for the UK court case which decided that there *is* something
wrong with it. Incidentally, there have been many more cases against
cybersquatters under US law.
>> If they have a legitimate reason for wanting to use the name brymor,
and
>> if that use wouldn't infringe your rights, then they are in the
clear.
>> But if their reason was simply to extort money out of you, or to
trade
>> on the back of your good name, you could sue them (if you felt it was
>> worth it).
>
>Indeed you are right. Extortion is illegal, as is fraud, but owning a
>commodity that someone else wants is not. I could have quite legally
>bought brymor.co.uk, then tried to sell it to Bryan. He could then
>either agree to my price, or choose another domain name.
The One In A Million case above wasn't decided the way it was because of
the extortionate prices that the defendants were asking. The legal
position would have been the same even if they'd been asking much more
reasonable prices. And as far as I know, they hadn't made any
fraudulent statements.
If you didn't have a legitimate reason for wanting to use brymor.co.uk,
and if Bryan had a sufficiently established reputation in the brymor
name, then he could sue you rather than pay the price you asked.
(Whether it would be worth it is another question.)
[snip]
>I know there are a few domains I would love to have (skate.co.uk,
>skate.org etc.) but have already been taken. A number of them have
>little to no content on them, whereas my site has useful info on it for
>skaters. No matter how much I complain, I have to either pay the
>current owner their asking price, or find another domain that suits me.
>It's just the way it is.
But "skate" is a generic word. Anyone can use it in respect of skating
activities, without infringing someone's trade mark. So there is no
risk of trade mark infringement when someone registers it as a domain
name. With words like that, it's just first come, first served.
>> The logic is that if the cybersquatter used the domain name, then it
>> would cause confusion and amount to passing off (the same as it
>> infringes Chanel's rights to pass off cheap perfume as the real
thing).
>> But the courts have taken it a little bit further and said that the
>> cybersquatter is infringing the rights of the "true" owner of the
name,
>> even if he hasn't actually used it.
>
>If the courts HAVE taken this further, it is stupid, and probably
>against european law. It is very different to own something
>(domain/cheap perfume) and to use it fraudulently.
See comment above, about it being illegal to sell fake Chanel, even if
you make clear that it's fake. It's still a trade mark infringement,
even if it's not fraud. And no, it's not stupid. Selling fake Chanel
still damages Chanel, whether the customer knows it's fake or not. (If
the fake stuff wasn't available, he/she would be more likely to buy the
real thing.)
I could quote you the article of the Treaty of Rome which says it's not
against European law, but you would get very bored. (And I'd have to go
into the office to look it up, which I've no intention of doing on
Boxing Day.)
Duncan Clarke
>
> And the UK courts have held that just registering someone else's trade
> mark as a domain name can amount to a threat of illegal trade mark
> infringement or "passing off".
This just shows how screwed up the UK laws are. Indeed I had a biker
mate who was done for "intent to exceed the speed limit" even though he
had the opportunity, and didn't.
> The "One In A Million" case which decided this is discussed at the
> following URLs, amonst others:
> http://lawmoney.oyster.co.uk/public/news/hotnews/news9807/news980731.1.h
> tml
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19971201S0006
I'll check these out - cheers.
> In this case, the defendants had no legitimate reason for registering
> "bt.org", "marksandspencer.com" and other domain names, except that they
> wanted to obtain money from the trade mark owners.
What right has BT got to register a .org domain (for non-profit
organisations IIRC). Couldn't M&S cope with marks-and-spencer.co.uk or
similar?
> It was held that, as
> they hadn't actually started websites at these URLs, they hadn't caused
> the trade mark owners any real damage. So they didn't have to pay
> damages. But an injunction was entered against them, and they had to
> pay GBP 65,000 in costs.
So it was found they had done nothing wrong, but were forced to pay out
anyway? Can we say "corrupt system"?
> I agree it's a better example. But if you think that it's legal to sell
> fake Chanel or fake Champagne, as long as you say that it's fake, you
> are dead wrong. Legally, it's still a trade mark infringement, or
> passing off, even if it's not fraud.
I see what you mean, in which case I change my arguement here :]
The chanel problem is that they are copying the intellectual property of
Chanel. If the fakes are indeed copies of the original, which Chanel
invested time and money in, then I agree. The difference with the
domains is that British Telecom are not being harmed by using bt.co.uk
or bt.com instead of bt.org.
> Incidentally, there have been many more cases against
> cybersquatters under US law.
Do you honestly want our justice system to follow that of the US in ANY
way?
> If you didn't have a legitimate reason for wanting to use brymor.co.uk,
> and if Bryan had a sufficiently established reputation in the brymor
> name, then he could sue you rather than pay the price you asked.
> But "skate" is a generic word. Anyone can use it in respect of skating
> activities, without infringing someone's trade mark.
Is brymor trademarked? If not, you are relying on reputation. My
reputation for skating info on the web is far in advance of those
holding most of the domains I want.
There may be a slightly better case for trademarked names, but I still
don't se how owning the marksandspencer.com domain means I am
passing-off as Marks and Spencers. Indeed, if this were the case,
freenetnames would be in trouble. I could register my domain with them,
then (as they hold the ownership) sue them for passing themselves off as
me. Eek!
> Selling fake Chanel
> still damages Chanel, whether the customer knows it's fake or not. (If
> the fake stuff wasn't available, he/she would be more likely to buy the
> real thing.)
Remember, selling, buying, owning and fitting 'chips' to playstations is
not illegal, even though using them to play copied games is. Owning and
selling a domain name should not illegal for the same reasons, but using
it to pass yourself off as someone you are not, should be.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
localhost.localdomain - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 5:50 - load: 1.00
1.05 1.03
Magic
<dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Remember, selling, buying, owning and fitting 'chips' to
playstations is
> not illegal, even though using them to play copied games is. Owning
and
> selling a domain name should not illegal for the same reasons, but
using
> it to pass yourself off as someone you are not, should be.
>
There's no place for common sence in British law, I thought you knew
that Duncan! ;o)
Magic ==|:o)
--
Location : Portsmouth, England, UK
Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
EMail : mailto:Ma...@mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
"Some of the sweetest sounds come from our smallest friends."
Tim Jackson
Duncan Clarke wrote in message
<3866EFF4...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk>...
[snipped discussion of the "One In A Million" cybersquatting case]
>> In this case, the defendants had no legitimate reason for registering
>> "bt.org", "marksandspencer.com" and other domain names, except that
they
>> wanted to obtain money from the trade mark owners.
>
>What right has BT got to register a .org domain (for non-profit
>organisations IIRC).
Sounds like another reason why the "One In A Million" defendants
deserved what they got. They weren't a non-profit organisation either
(well, not intentionally. They probably didn't make any profit after
they got lumbered with the court costs.)
At least BT were entitled to the "bt" part of the name.
Couldn't M&S cope with marks-and-spencer.co.uk or
>similar?
I believe they can, and indeed do.
But if I were in their shoes, I know that I'd be pretty alarmed if some
fly-by-night outfit came along and said "we've got marksandspencer.com -
pay us loads of dosh and we'll sell it to you". Even if they're not
making any overt threats, you don't know what they'd do if you failed to
pay up. It's pretty easy to set up a redirection to a porn site, for
example. And that would be very damaging to a company like M&S.
In the absence of any unspoken threats of this nature, the value of the
domain name is (at most) just the GBP 100 or so that it would have cost
M&S to register it themselves. That's because they can happily use
another domain name, without buying it from One In A Million. It
wouldn't have been worth One In A Million's while to register the name
speculatively if they were prepared to accept only what it cost to
register. In other words, either One In A Million were into a dodgy
line of business, with unspoken threats, or there was no worthwhile
business at all.
Suppose that I were to register "marksandspencer" as a trade mark, or as
a company name. I could then offer to sell these registrations to M&S,
at a profit. Would that be legal? Of course not. So why should it be
legal for domain names?
>> It was held that, as
>> they hadn't actually started websites at these URLs, they hadn't
caused
>> the trade mark owners any real damage. So they didn't have to pay
>> damages. But an injunction was entered against them, and they had to
>> pay GBP 65,000 in costs.
>
>So it was found they had done nothing wrong, but were forced to pay out
>anyway? Can we say "corrupt system"?
They *had* done something wrong, but it hadn't caused any damage. If it
had caused damage, they'd have had to pay more.
Of course, they could have chosen not to fight in court, but to give up
when the plaintiffs' solicitors first wrote to them. Then they probably
wouldn't have had to pay anything.
[snipped discussion of fake Chanel etc]
>The chanel problem is that they are copying the intellectual property
of
>Chanel. If the fakes are indeed copies of the original, which Chanel
>invested time and money in, then I agree. The difference with the
>domains is that British Telecom are not being harmed by using bt.co.uk
>or bt.com instead of bt.org.
But the BT name *is* their intellectual property. And they *have*
invested time and money in developing it and advertising it, so that the
public recognises it as representing them and only them. The name is
still their property, not that of the "One In A Million" defendants,
whether the defendants have actually caused harm or not.
>> Incidentally, there have been many more cases against
>> cybersquatters under US law.
>
>Do you honestly want our justice system to follow that of the US in ANY
>way?
Actually, if you go into the history of it, their justice system is
based on ours, not the other way round. I agree that the US has gone
way too far in a number of areas, but in principle I'm in favour of
legal protection against those who hijack people's trade marks and other
intellectual property.
>> If you didn't have a legitimate reason for wanting to use
brymor.co.uk,
>> and if Bryan had a sufficiently established reputation in the brymor
>> name, then he could sue you rather than pay the price you asked.
>
>> But "skate" is a generic word. Anyone can use it in respect of
skating
>> activities, without infringing someone's trade mark.
>
>Is brymor trademarked? If not, you are relying on reputation. My
>reputation for skating info on the web is far in advance of those
>holding most of the domains I want.
But no-one can legally monopolise the word "skate" as a trade mark for
skating activities, because it is a generic word. You could have an
interesting (but futile) argument here. Is it right that others can
register "skate" as a domain name, just because they got there first?
The de facto situation is that they can, as long as no-one else has any
rights in it.
On the other hand, it's perfectly proper for British Telecom and M&S to
monopolise the names "BT" and "Marks and Spencer". So it is also proper
for them to have a monopoly on similar domain names.
[snip]
>Remember, selling, buying, owning and fitting 'chips' to playstations
is
>not illegal, even though using them to play copied games is.
Not sure quite what you are saying here. If the chips contain illegally
copied code, then selling them *would* be illegal. If the chips don't
contain any copied code, then the situation would be different from the
"bt.org" domain name, which *does* contain the copied BT name.
And, of course, the principles of copyright infringement are not quite
the same as for trade marks, though it all comes under the heading
"intellectual property".
Tony Morgan
<dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Owning and
>selling a domain name should not illegal for the same reasons, but using
>it to pass yourself off as someone you are not, should be.
In spite of all the smoke, AFAICS the principle applied in those
(relatively few) rulings appears simple; If a company name is registered
(either public or limited liability or 'Inc' etc) then they, and only
they, have the right to use the name. If a company is not registered,
but has been trading for some time, then the same test is applied.
I have read (though I can't remember the references) that the domain
registration authorities/agencies usually apply the same test if a
challenge is made to the registration.
Magic
wrote:
> In article <3866EFF4...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk>, Duncan
Clarke
> <dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >Owning and
> >selling a domain name should not illegal for the same reasons, but
using
> >it to pass yourself off as someone you are not, should be.
>
> In spite of all the smoke, AFAICS the principle applied in those
> (relatively few) rulings appears simple; If a company name is
registered
> (either public or limited liability or 'Inc' etc) then they, and
only
> they, have the right to use the name. If a company is not
registered,
> but has been trading for some time, then the same test is applied.
>
> I have read (though I can't remember the references) that the domain
> registration authorities/agencies usually apply the same test if a
> challenge is made to the registration.
OK. What if I register the domain name "Magic Music" for the audio
section of my internet site, with the intention of making it a lrge
site on it's own, then find out that there is a company called "Magic
Music" and they want the domain name? I'm not registering it it with
the intention of disrupting their business - at the time I did not
know of their existance and had done a domain search.
What if there are two companies with the same name? Photoprint Inc.
and Photoprint Ltd - both wanting photoprint.co.uk ?
Duncan Clarke
>
> >Remember, selling, buying, owning and fitting 'chips' to playstations
> is
> >not illegal, even though using them to play copied games is.
>
> Not sure quite what you are saying here. If the chips contain illegally
> copied code, then selling them *would* be illegal. If the chips don't
> contain any copied code, then the situation would be different from the
> "bt.org" domain name, which *does* contain the copied BT name.
My point is that having an opportunity to do something illegal is not
itself illegal. Making a playstation work with pirated games is not
illegal, pirating games, and actually using pirated games is illegal.
In the same way, owning a domain name should not in itself be illegal.
Using it to in any way damage the trademark owner should be, as should
threatening to do the same. AFAIK, in this case no damage way done or
threatened.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 2 days 2:54 - load: 1.05 1.04 1.00
Tim Jackson
[snip]
> ..... owning a domain name should not in itself be illegal.
>Using it to in any way damage the trademark owner should be, as should
>threatening to do the same.
If the trade mark owner actually wants a given domain name which
incorporates his mark, then he should be free to register it himself.
He shouldn't be forced to pay over the odds to someone else.
If he doesn't want it, he shouldn't have to worry about what someone
else might do with it.
And the only possible reasons that someone else could have for
registering his trade mark as a domain name are (a) to charge him over
the odds for it; and/or (b) to threaten to cause damage or mischief in
some way; and/or (c) to block the trade mark owner from a name that
ought to be available to him and only him.
I could live with your view that it should not be illegal merely to
register someone else's trade mark as a domain name, PROVIDED the
following two things applied.
Firstly, it should always be possible for the trade mark owner to buy
the domain name, at no more than the cost of registration (perhaps
including a small overhead equivalent to the cost to the trade mark
owner of employing someone to do the job).
Secondly, if the trade mark owner said "No, thanks, I don't want it",
then the registration should automatically lapse, to prevent the
possibility of damage or mischief. Since the person who registered the
domain name can't legitimately use it, he couldn't complain about that.
And the trade mark owner would know that he wouldn't suffer as a result
of saying "no".
Of course, neither of these provisos exist in real life. And if they
did, no-one would be interested in registering other people's trade
marks as domain names. They wouldn't be able to make a profit from it.
This goes to show that any profit a cybersquatter can make at present is
not legitimate profit.
So what's wrong with having the same rule on domain name registration as
already exists on trade mark registration or company name registration?
Namely, it's not legal for you to register something similar to someone
else's trade mark, unless you yourself also have a legitimate claim to
be able to use it.
Tim Jackson
Magic wrote in message <3876bc4c...@news.freeserve.net>...
[snip]
>OK. What if I register the domain name "Magic Music" for the audio
>section of my internet site, with the intention of making it a lrge
>site on it's own, then find out that there is a company called "Magic
>Music" and they want the domain name? I'm not registering it it with
>the intention of disrupting their business - at the time I did not
>know of their existance and had done a domain search.
>
>What if there are two companies with the same name? Photoprint Inc.
>and Photoprint Ltd - both wanting photoprint.co.uk ?
There is a new domain name dispute resolution service provided by the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). See
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/index.html. WIPO is a United Nations
agency in Geneva, which also administers the various international
treaties about intellectual property.
I've no experience of how this new service works. But I would expect
them to find against mere cybersquatters, while trying to find a
reasonable solution to the genuine kind of problem which you describe.
But resolving the domain name dispute isn't necessarily the end of the
matter. If there could be confusion between you and the other "Magic
Music" company, you should get legal advice about the risk of trade mark
infringement and "passing off". (The same is true even if neither
company is operating on the Internet.)
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>There is a new domain name dispute resolution service provided by the
>World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). See
>http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/index.html. WIPO is a United Nations
>agency in Geneva, which also administers the various international
>treaties about intellectual property.
See also ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, at
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm.
I've not studied it yet, but when it is fully implemented it looks like
people registering domain names will have to make certain
representations:
[quote]
By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or
renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us
that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are
complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the
domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of
any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an
unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in
violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your
responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration
infringes or violates someone else's rights.
[end quote]
Garry Anderson
> domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of
> any third party;
Hello,
There are untold thousands of trademarks worldwide and the use of infinite
variations (sound alikes, mispellings etc) are said to be illegal. You
*CANNOT FAIL* to not infringe upon them. You have no doubt heard of recent
examples, including eToys.com unjustly stopping etoy.com, even though they
started 2 years later. The big business stopping small business (Toys R
Us -vs- Guns Are Us). Even the BBC are attempting to steal bbc.org off a
small long standing computer club. This is after the BBC paid estimated 2
million dollars for bbc.com to the wealthy Boston Business Computing. One
law for the rich, another for the poor. Business cruelly took action to get
a little girls name off her (Veronica.org). If anything even remotely
connected, they will steal them off you also.
The rightful and true lawful owners should be the ones that purchased them
on a "first come, first served basis". For example, what gives McDonalds, a
profiteering burger chain, the sole right to take mcdonalds.com off you.
What about all those McDonald families; are their rights any less? Why
should anyone have the right to a domain name over any other? It did not
belong to them in the first instance.
The Internet and Trademarks are totally different systems, companies have no
just claim. The Internet is not for the sole use of business. In a free
society what gives a company the god-like right to take anything it wants?
The reason is that over recent years, they have come to realise the
limitless potential of the Internet. The Cybersquatting bill is an unjust
extension of the trademark laws. Through the influence of biased members of
included bodies, they have widened its scope.
Registered companies should have sole use of a TLD (i.e. .reg.us or
.reg.uk). No one can take a domain name from them and they could be found
quickly. There will be no confusion about who owns it. Nobody will come
across a sex site by accident. The recent extension to 67 characters for dot
coms is just a fiddle, to pretend they are doing something to alleviate the
problem. I do not think an intelligent business will want
AVeryLongDomainName-ItWillNotSolveAnything-ItWillAnnoyCustomers.COM. It does
allow registration companies to get many millions more in revenue from
speculators though. Companies are having the problems now and speculators
are banking on intelligent search engines to improve pick in the longer
term.
They all knew the obvious answer was to have a new TLD. This though did not
allow them to get enough control. The U.S. Government deliberately stopped
any chance of it getting sorted, with a 'green paper' in January 98. This
gave them the expected hostile response that they wanted from the European
Union. They manufactured this problem; thereby giving express permission for
TM name taking (as had been going on before), for the sole purpose of making
laws to take over the Internet. If you click cybersquatting button on my
site www.SKILFUL.com you will find all points to be deductive and common
sense logic. If you wish to look yourself I am sure you will come to the
same logical conclusion. For people that see this as fact and care, you
should join a group that promotes Internet rights. Many groups seem to focus
on individual issues, I believe the problem is so bad (and will get worse)
they should get together to form an alliance. What do you think?
Regards,
Garry.
Magic
<xxxx...@xxxxxx.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi there
> Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my
questions.
> 1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of
this
> such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have
to buy
> all variants to stop someone also using it.
They could buy the same domain with a different suffix (eg.
england.com, england.net, england.org.uk etc) but you can't buy the
same domain in a different case - all donains are actually lower case
(so ENGLAND.co.uk would become england.co.uk which you would already
have)
> 2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a
company that
> so far isnt online.
If the name you register is a company name which has been registered
as either a ltd or plc, or a company that has been trading some time,
then yes it is. If you register a name that is not immediately
obviously the name of a company and it was not your intension to
prevent them from using it by "cybersquatting" then it's at the
discression of the court should a conflict arise.
> 3) If I buy a domain name but do not use the people I purchased from
as my
> server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
Some companies use "hosting" and others use "forwarding". Hosting is
where the domain is actually used to access your site directly, and
forwarding is where it accesses a special page that redirects the
person to your site. Hosting is a better solution and faster, but it's
also more expensive, often requiring a commercial (ie non-free)
account. There may be fees involved in transferring your domain from
one company to another (ranging from ?10 to ?250 purely dependant on
the company you bought from) - you need to contact the company you
bought from to see what's involved.
> 4)Does anyone know of a reputable company they have bought a domain
name of
> that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
I'm about to urchase a domain myself, probably from this peson
www.gradwell.com - the site is well worth a read, it has some great
info. He's also cheap and a very helpful person if you need advice!
> 5)Is a domain name purchased for life or do you have to renew each
year for
> a fee
> thanks for all the help
>
Usually 2-yearly, billing varies between companies - usually you pay
in years 1, 3, 5, 7 etc.
Duncan Clarke
>
> If the trade mark owner actually wants a given domain name which
> incorporates his mark, then he should be free to register it himself.
> He shouldn't be forced to pay over the odds to someone else.
In the commercial world where we live, 'over the odds' is not relevant.
The trademark owner should be offered a price which they can either
accept, or decline.
Remember, if they decline, the prospector gets nothing, so it's in both
interests to find a price that is acceptable by both.
> If he doesn't want it, he shouldn't have to worry about what someone
> else might do with it.
Definitely agree here. Any other way and it would be extortion. I am
NOT advocating that. Unlawful or damaging use of the trademark name (in
fact, any actual use of it) should be outlawed.
> I could live with your view that it should not be illegal merely to
> register someone else's trade mark as a domain name, PROVIDED the
> following two things applied.
>
> Firstly, it should always be possible for the trade mark owner to buy
> the domain name, at no more than the cost of registration (perhaps
> including a small overhead equivalent to the cost to the trade mark
> owner of employing someone to do the job).
Why should domain names be exempt from the normal rules of a capitalist
economy? The prospector is buying a resource at a low price in the hope
that they can sell at a reasonable profit. The trademark owner can
easily decline their offer, and use a different name (eg. bt.co.ok
instead of bt.org).
> Secondly, if the trade mark owner said "No, thanks, I don't want it",
> then the registration should automatically lapse, to prevent the
> possibility of damage or mischief.
This is not feasible. If the 'lapse' meant it went back into the public
domain, then no-one would ever pay. If it meant it was no longer
available, this would amount to extortion, as the prospector could say
'buy now, or you'll never be able to'.
Saying you can't own something that could possibly be used to damage
another is just getting silly. This does not mean that people who DO
damage others should get away with it though. If the prospector goes on
to harm the trademark owner (in any way, not just by using the domain
name) they should face the consequences.
> Since the person who registered the
> domain name can't legitimately use it, he couldn't complain about that.
They could if they paid for it, and now it's not theirs any more. If
they could retain ownership, they could adjust their price, or keep the
domain, and ask again at a later date.
> And the trade mark owner would know that he wouldn't suffer as a result
> of saying "no".
Definitely agree. There should never be any harm caused by not
registering a name.
> Of course, neither of these provisos exist in real life. And if they
> did, no-one would be interested in registering other people's trade
> marks as domain names. They wouldn't be able to make a profit from it.
> This goes to show that any profit a cybersquatter can make at present is
> not legitimate profit.
There is nothing illegitimate, illegal or immoral about making a profit
in this way.
What I DO find wrong is freenetnames, where the cluebie is lead to
believe they are getting their domain name for free, but they are not.
What they are doing is exactly what you describe. They are purchasing
your domain name, then providing such a crap service that you have to
move it, and are forced to pay £94 to do so.
Though I find their practices decidedly dodgy, I can't say they are
illegal.
> So what's wrong with having the same rule on domain name registration as
> already exists on trade mark registration or company name registration?
> Namely, it's not legal for you to register something similar to someone
> else's trade mark, unless you yourself also have a legitimate claim to
> be able to use it.
Simple. There is no benefit to the trademark owner of having 2 similar
trademarked names. There IS a benefit of having a domain name (or more
than one) that is similar to your trademarked name.
This being the case, I can't see any legitimate reason to trademark (for
example) "Mark and Spencer" as a trademark, except for dodgy dealings
(re "Marks and Spencers") as M&S won't buy it off you.
Buying marksandspencers.com is legitimate, as there is a valid reason to
have it (to resell at a profit).
I think the whole issue is based in the fact that there was an
assumption that is the M&S refused to buy the domain, it would
automatically be used against them in some way. This is one hell of an
assumption to make in a society that claims people are "innocent until
proven guilty"!
Then of course there's the combined financial might of M&S and BT...
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 9:53 - load: 1.01 1.05 1.02
Tim Jackson
[Quoting an extract from the declaration required from a domain name
applicant, in the new ICANN domain name dispute resolution policy.]
>> (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the
>> domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of
>> any third party;
>
>Hello,
>There are untold thousands of trademarks worldwide and the use of
infinite
>variations (sound alikes, mispellings etc) are said to be illegal. You
>*CANNOT FAIL* to not infringe upon them.
Actually, trade mark law has always recognised this problem.
Consequently, when you register a trade mark, you have to specify what
goods or services you intend to use it on. Use on totally different
goods or services is not normally an infringement, except in rare
circumstances (such as a very famous trade mark like perhaps Rolls
Royce). Legally, two companies with the same trade mark, but in
different lines of business, can usually co-exist quite happily.
Where the situation gets more difficult is when it comes to applying
this principle to domain names. Two different businesses might
legitimately use the same trade mark. But they can't both have the same
domain name.
When such cases have come to court, the US courts have regularly
favoured the first to register the domain name concerned. But both
parties can continue to use the trade mark in their businesses, as they
always have done.
To the best of my knowledge, there has not yet been any such case in the
UK courts. But the underlying legal principles in this country are
similar to those in the US, so I believe the result in this country
would probably also be the same.
There is an interesting article by Carl Oppedahl at
http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. Oppedahl is a well-respected US lawyer
with wide experience of internet-related intellectual property cases.
His article describes numerous US court cases backing up what I have
just said.
But Oppedahl also strongly criticises the dispute resolution policy
adopted in the past by Network Solutions Inc (the registrar for '.com'
domain names). He argues that NSI misunderstood the law. As a result,
they have wrongly tended to favour trade mark owners, where the courts
would have favoured the first to register a particular domain name.
Hundreds of legitimate domain names have been wrongly suspended at the
request of trade mark owners - hence Oppedahl calls these cases "reverse
domain name hijacking".
Of course, this situation is wrong. But the fundamental blame for it
lies with NSI. You can't say that the basic fault is with the law or
the courts. (The most significant thing wrong there is the cost of US
litigation. It's not much comfort to a small guy, whose domain name has
been wrongly suspended by NSI, to tell him that he'd win if he went to
court. He probably can't afford to go to court.)
The new ICANN and WIPO dispute resolution procedures seem to be an
attempt to put things right. If you are legitimately using a given
trade mark or company name, then you can truthfully make the declaration
quoted at the start of this post, despite the fact that someone else
also uses it in a different line of business.
But cybersquatters can't truthfully make the declaration. The
difference here is that a cybersquatter is someone who has no legitimate
right to use the name concerned. The courts have been pretty consistent
in condemning such people, and NSI have been right to suspend their
domain names. And I expect that the new dispute resolution procedures
are intended to have the same effect.
Whether the new dispute resolution procedures will actually work remains
to be seen. The situation is in a great state of flux.
>You have no doubt heard of recent
>examples, including eToys.com unjustly stopping etoy.com, even though
they
>started 2 years later.
The eToys case is clearly still at a very early stage. The initial
ruling from the court in California seems to run counter to most other
US court decisions on reverse domain name hijacking. And the defendants
(the Zurich-based artists' group etoy) evidently only appointed their
current attorney *after* the preliminary hearing went against them.
I therefore suspect that etoy didn't defend themselves very well at the
preliminary hearing, and that the final decision will be rather
different. Indeed, recent reports suggest that the plaintiff toy firm
are trying to settle the case -- I doubt they'd do that if they thought
they were going to win in the end (though the bad publicity may also be
having an effect).
>The big business stopping small business (Toys R
>Us -vs- Guns Are Us). Even the BBC are attempting to steal bbc.org off
a
>small long standing computer club. This is after the BBC paid estimated
2
>million dollars for bbc.com to the wealthy Boston Business Computing.
One
>law for the rich, another for the poor. Business cruelly took action to
get
>a little girls name off her (Veronica.org). If anything even remotely
>connected, they will steal them off you also.
I don't know these cases. Can you give references to reports about
them? For example, from the title you give, the Toys-R-Us case sounds
like it might have been a straightforward case of passing off, with Guns
Are Us trading on (or perhaps even deliberately denigrating) the
reputation of Toys-R-Us. If so, it would probably be decided the same
way irrespective of whether a domain name was involved.
>The rightful and true lawful owners should be the ones that purchased
them
>on a "first come, first served basis". For example, what gives
McDonalds, a
>profiteering burger chain, the sole right to take mcdonalds.com off
you.
>
>What about all those McDonald families; are their rights any less? Why
>should anyone have the right to a domain name over any other? It did
not
>belong to them in the first instance.
In the beginning, nothing whatsoever gave the burger chain the *sole*
rights to 'mcdonalds.com'. Where two parties are both entitled to use a
given domain name, the legal position is indeed "first come, first
served".
So if the domain name had been registered first by one of these other
McDonalds, or by another company with a legitimate right to use it, then
they would have been legally entitled to keep it. Legally, the burger
chain would have had to make do with some other domain name (though I
suppose they could have tried their luck with NSI's now-discredited
dispute procedure).
Interestingly, there are indeed other independently-owned sites with
similar names to mcdonalds.com. See www.macdonalds.com and
www.macdonald.co.uk.
The facts of the McDonalds case are as follows. Back in 1994, when
cybersquatting was practically unknown, a journalist called Joshua
Quitner foresaw the problem and wanted to draw public attention to it.
He did this by registering 'mcdonalds.com', then offering to sell it to
the burger chain -- classic cybersquatting, since he had no legitimate
right to the McDonalds name.
In fact, neither side lost in this case, since there was an amicable
settlement. Having achieved his objective of increased public debate on
the cybersquatting issue, Quitner gave the domain name to McDonalds. In
return, McDonalds donated computer equipment to a school. No doubt they
got valuable PR in the process. And, importantly, they got the domain
name before anyone else called McDonald thought of doing so.
>The Internet and Trademarks are totally different systems, companies
have no
>just claim. The Internet is not for the sole use of business.
But where businesses do use the Internet, they should be subject to the
same laws as they are in the traditional media. That includes the laws
about trade marks and passing off. Lawlessness shouldn't be condoned
just because the Internet is perceived as different from other media.
And those laws do attempt to protect non-business users of the Internet,
the same as they protect non-business users of the traditional media.
So, to take one of your examples, all the other McDonalds families would
have had the same right as the burger chain to register mcdonalds.com,
had they got there first.
Admittedly, the law doesn't always work perfectly, such as when NSI
misunderstands it, or when legal proceedings are too expensive for
individuals or small businesses, or when groups of artists in Zurich
fail to put up a good argument in a preliminary court hearing in
California. That doesn't mean you should abolish the law. It means
that you should do something to solve the problems.
>In a free
>society what gives a company the god-like right to take anything it
wants?
What gives a cybersquatter a god-like right to hijack someone else's
trade mark, and then to try to make a profit out of it? The situation
is of course different if a domain name is registered by someone with a
legitimate interest in it -- that's not cybersquatting.
[snip]
>Registered companies should have sole use of a TLD (i.e. .reg.us or
>.reg.uk). No one can take a domain name from them and they could be
found
>quickly. There will be no confusion about who owns it.
Wasn't that the original purpose of the '.com' TLD -- to distinguish
commercial companies from non-profit organisations, educational
establishments, military users, etc? It hasn't prevented confusion,
partly because people register non-profit sites as '.com'. Much of your
own site is a case in point.
>Nobody will come
>across a sex site by accident.
If a commercial registered company is in business to sell porn, what
would stop them from registering a domain name under your proposed
'.reg.us' or '.reg.uk'?
[snipped remainder]
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>Why should domain names be exempt from the normal rules of a capitalist
>economy? The prospector is buying a resource at a low price in the
hope
>that they can sell at a reasonable profit. The trademark owner can
>easily decline their offer, and use a different name (eg. bt.co.ok
>instead of bt.org).
There are many cases where this is quite right. For example, it would
be perfectly OK for a speculator to register 'skate.com' or
'jackson.com' or 'clarke.com', in the hope of selling them to the
highest bidder. That's because 'skate' is a generic word, free for
anybody to use; and Jackson and Clarke are common surnames, which large
numbers of people are entitled to use. The registration of such domain
names is therefore "first come, first served". And if the first person
to come is a speculator, he's got as much right to be first served as
anyone else.
But when it comes to 'marksandspencer.com', the situation is different.
There's only one possible legitimate user of that domain name, so it
shouldn't be first come, first served.
You talk about making a 'reasonable profit'. I suspect that that would
mean different things to different people. In the case of One In A
Million, clearly they hoped to get the maximum market value of
'marksandspencer.com', taking account of the value this name might have
to M&S.
So let's do a thought experiment, firstly on a name like 'skate.com' or
'jackson.com'. What is it that makes such a name valuable, and sets the
level of a 'reasonable profit'? Answer: the fact that many people can
legitimately use the name. It will be more valuable to some than to
others, and the speculator can hunt around for the highest bidder.
Now repeat the experiment with 'marksandspencer.com'. What is it that
makes this name valuable? Answer: chiefly the fact that it incorporates
M&S's trade mark. And why is that valuable? Answer: because M&S have
spent many years, and much time, effort and money promoting their trade
mark.
So what exactly was One In A Million offering to M&S, that had value,
and that would set the price they could charge? Two things. Firstly,
the fact that 'marksandspencer.com' incorporates a valuable trade mark.
Secondly, the service of having registered this trade mark as a domain
name. And clearly, in this case, the first had much more value than the
second.
But it was M&S themselves who had created the value in the trade mark,
by their promotional efforts over the years. Why should they pay
someone else good money for something which they themselves had created
(and for which they had already paid out much money in the process)?
That leaves only the value of the service of registering the trade mark
as a domain name. Perhaps you could argue that One In A Million should
be entitled to a reasonable fee for this service. But was that all they
were after? Of course not.
>> Secondly, if the trade mark owner said "No, thanks, I don't want it",
>> then the registration should automatically lapse, to prevent the
>> possibility of damage or mischief.
>
>This is not feasible. If the 'lapse' meant it went back into the
public
>domain, then no-one would ever pay.
Yes, I wasn't putting it forward as a serious possibility. Just using
it as a debating point to show that any profit a cybersquatter can make
is not legitimate profit. Though you're obviously not convinced....
[snip]
>> Since the person who registered the
>> domain name can't legitimately use it, he couldn't complain about
that.
>
>They could if they paid for it, and now it's not theirs any more.
If they'd taken legal advice before they registered the domain name,
they'd have known that they were going to lose it. Nobody is forced to
buy something they know they are not going to be allowed to keep.
[snip]
>.... There is no benefit to the trademark owner of having 2 similar
>trademarked names.
Actually, there is. Trade mark owners often use (and register) several
variants of their trade marks. Though I don't see this has much
relevance to our present debate.
[snipped remainder]
Duncan Clarke
> same laws as they are in the traditional media. That includes the laws
> about trade marks and passing off. Lawlessness shouldn't be condoned
> just because the Internet is perceived as different from other media.
The problem IS that the Interent is perceived as different from other
media, but I find that the opposite occurs. MP3 is a digital music
format which can be distributed on the Internet, so it was immediately
badged as illegal, pirating etc.
Email is seen as a haven for pornography, where the Royal Mail is not.
Those who have legally reverse engineered the encryption of DVD's so
that open-source DVD players/encoders are being taken to court.
People are complaining that the address they want (for that is all a
domain name is) have already been taken, and they want it. I can AFAIK
buy the ownership of any phone number I want (obviously from a defined
set) and sell them on later. I could register 0345 345 345 and sell it
to '345 Ltd' for a profit.
> What gives a cybersquatter a god-like right to hijack someone else's
> trade mark, and then to try to make a profit out of it? The situation
> is of course different if a domain name is registered by someone with a
> legitimate interest in it -- that's not cybersquatting.
They are not hijacking a trademark. Trademarks identify a company
uniquely. There only needs to be one place this is held (in the
register of companies?) and the address of their web pages should NOT be
used for this purpose. It is simply an advantage to have a similar
domain name, not a requirement.
If however, one person registered all reasonable domain names for a
specific company, it could then be a job for the monopolies and megers
commission (because there is only one company who can offer this
service). This is very unlikely though. For example M&S:
marksandspencers
marksandspencer
marks_and_spencers
marks_and_spencer
m_and_s
marks_and_sparks
marksandsparks
ms_uk
net
com
co.uk
ltd.uk (for limited companies only)
org
net.uk
org.ok
that took 5 mins to think of, and gives 56 options. There will always
be more.
Remember, it's just an address, not a unique identifier.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 2 days 11:11 - load: 1.00 1.02 1.02
Garry Anderson
Duncan Clarke <dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:387181F0...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Garry Anderson wrote in message <84oavo$cka$1...@gxsn.com>...
> >
Tim Jackson
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>
>> What gives a cybersquatter a god-like right to hijack someone else's
>> trade mark, and then to try to make a profit out of it? The
situation
>> is of course different if a domain name is registered by someone with
a
>> legitimate interest in it -- that's not cybersquatting.
>
>uniquely. There only needs to be one place this is held (in the
>register of companies?) and the address of their web pages should NOT
be
>used for this purpose. It is simply an advantage to have a similar
>domain name, not a requirement.
>Remember, it's just an address, not a unique identifier.
So you don't think that the public is going to identify
marksandspencer.com uniquely with Marks & Spencer plc? Who else would
they reasonably identify it with? Are they going to look it up in the
register of companies (or wherever) before making the natural
assumption?
And if it is taken by someone else instead, why is that not equivalent
to hijacking it?
Yes, I know that M&S have numerous possibilities they could choose from
for their domain name. But the fact remains that marksandspencer.com
will be identified with them and them alone.
Duncan Clarke
>
> You talk about making a 'reasonable profit'. I suspect that that would
> mean different things to different people. In the case of One In A
> Million, clearly they hoped to get the maximum market value of
> 'marksandspencer.com', taking account of the value this name might have
> to M&S.
Yes. The market value of any commodity is the price the customer will
pay. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is. I
agree that 'reasonable profit' is a subjective thing (incidentally it is
not illegal to charge silly prices, just ask Microsoft), but so is
'legitimate use'.
> Now repeat the experiment with 'marksandspencer.com'. What is it that
> makes this name valuable? Answer: chiefly the fact that it incorporates
> M&S's trade mark. And why is that valuable? Answer: because M&S have
> spent many years, and much time, effort and money promoting their trade
> mark.
I'm pretty sure there is no legal precedence that stops you from selling
a product simply because you are aiming it at only one possible
customer! Especially if that customer has other options.
> So what exactly was One In A Million offering to M&S, that had value,
> and that would set the price they could charge? Two things. Firstly,
> the fact that 'marksandspencer.com' incorporates a valuable trade mark.
> Secondly, the service of having registered this trade mark as a domain
> name. And clearly, in this case, the first had much more value than the
> second.
If M&S weren't willing to pay for 'marksandspencer.com', why did they
not simply use marksandspencer.co.uk, or any of the other options?
> Why should they pay
> someone else good money for something which they themselves had created
> (and for which they had already paid out much money in the process)?
They are not buying the company name or brand. They are simply buying a
memorable address. M&S won't buy it if they won't make the price back,
will they? They have other options. Everyone knows who M&S are without
the domain name, so their website does not define their brand. They
could use any easy to remember name quite easily.
> Yes, I wasn't putting it forward as a serious possibility. Just using
> it as a debating point to show that any profit a cybersquatter can make
> is not legitimate profit. Though you're obviously not convinced....
Not by this. The same twisted argument could be used for almost
anything...
'If no-one buys your car on the first attempt, you forfeit it, and they
can buy it for £5 from the central bureau of cars, thus stopping
profiteering on car sales' ...
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 3 days 4:06 - load: 1.07 1.03 1.01
Tim Jackson
>> What gives a cybersquatter a god-like right to hijack someone else's
>> trade mark, and then to try to make a profit out of it? The
situation
>> is of course different if a domain name is registered by someone with
a
>> legitimate interest in it -- that's not cybersquatting.
>
>uniquely. There only needs to be one place this is held (in the
>register of companies?) and the address of their web pages should NOT
be
>used for this purpose. It is simply an advantage to have a similar
>domain name, not a requirement.
A further point occurred to me after my previous reply to this.
You seem to be assuming that there is no overlap between domain names
and trade marks. That they have separate functions, and that you can
notionally put them into separate boxes and treat them differently.
Well, that would be nice and neat and tidy. But unfortunately the real
world isn't that simple.
By definition, a trade mark is "any sign ... which is capable of
distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other
undertakings." (Trade Marks Act 1994, section 1(1).)
When I think of the sign 'marksandspencer.com', then yes, I see it as a
domain name. But, in addition, it also brings to mind shirts and
jumpers and underwear and food, all from one particular undertaking.
And I think that it would do the same to 99.9% of the population of this
country. It is clearly a "sign which is capable of distinguishing goods
or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings."
So it is not only a domain name. It is also a trade mark. You can't
treat it as if it isn't. And whatever you believe about who can own
domain names, there's only one company that can rightfully own this
trade mark.
Michael J. Rogers
T...@winterbourne.ANTISPAMfreeserve.co.uk says...
-snipped-
> Yes, I know that M&S have numerous possibilities they could choose from
> for their domain name. But the fact remains that marksandspencer.com
> will be identified with them and them alone.
Just like the www.bbc.com will be identified with the British
Broadcasting Corporation and them alone?
--
www.shortime.co.uk
ICQ# 22092337
Garry Anderson
news:MPG.12dde8f2c...@news.freeserve.net...
Hello Michael,
The domain bbc.com would have been identified with another totally different
company a year ago.
Don't know if you caught what I said earlier. But the BBC originally had
bbc.co.uk - then decided it wanted bbc.com. So they paid an estimated 2
million dollars (unconfirmed) for bbc.com to the wealthy Boston Business
Computing. They are now attempting to steal bbc.org off a small, long
standing Canadian computer club. One law for the rich, another for the poor.
My view is to use simplest solution, first come - first served and .reg for
trademarks. Tell everyone that .reg is for registered trademark holders - no
confusion - no one going to a sex site by accident - no infringement - no
cybersquatting. Everything else comes under the first amendment - free
speech is the right of everyone.
The reason the authorities do not want this solution, is that it does not
give them enough control of the Internet. The system they want (and we are
heading for), gives them right to say who has what, to stop you if they
don't like what your doing, makes them more profit, stop you making money
reselling domains to business, multiband microtaxes, more work for
lawyers... the list goes on.
Regards,
Garry
È
> Im considering getting a domain name if someone could answer my questions.
> 1) If I was to buy eg. england.co.uk could somebody buy a variant of this
> such as england.com or ENGLAND.co.uk and use it,if so, would I have to buy
> all variants to stop someone also using it.
> so far isnt online.
> server, can I use my domain name with eg.Freeserve(and how)
of
> that are cheap as Ive noticed prices are different.
for
> a fee
> thanks for all the help
>
>
2. no
3. ? depends on re-seller ... but your domainname.freeserve .co.uk or
fsnet.co.uk is the cheapest option.
4. see www.exploit.com domain name, 12 month hosting, three month key to
publish your site about £70
5. usually 2 years
karen
Duncan Clarke
>
> So you don't think that the public is going to identify
> marksandspencer.com uniquely with Marks & Spencer plc? Who else would
> they reasonably identify it with? Are they going to look it up in the
> register of companies (or wherever) before making the natural
> assumption?
You misunderstand. The unique I am talking about is that Marks and
Spencer PLC. have one registered name, so if you want information about
Marks and Spencer PLC. the official place to ask first would be through
the trademark, not the domain name.
For example, you have a lawsuit out against Marks and Spencer PLC. The
people legally responsible are the directors (I assume) named in the
list of registered companies, or whatever. Whoever is the registered
owner of marksandspencer.com has nothing to do with it (unless the
lawsuit is specifically about the site, and even then I assume it would
be the directors again who are held responsible in the end).
> And if it is taken by someone else instead, why is that not equivalent
> to hijacking it?
How can you hijack something that nobody owns? If they wanted it, they
should have had the foresight to register it first. If someone else
thinks of it first, why should they then be able to take it away just
like that?
> Yes, I know that M&S have numerous possibilities they could choose from
> for their domain name. But the fact remains that marksandspencer.com
> will be identified with them and them alone.
Who cares. If it is not used, but marksandspencer.co.uk is (by M&S),
who is being harmed? NO-ONE! If people try marksandspencer.com and
find nothing, then it would make NO DIFFERENCE if it was registered or
not. If the guys at 'One in a million' actually used the domain, then
it is a different issue altogether.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 2 days 19:18 - load: 1.06 1.07 1.07
Duncan Clarke
>
> By definition, a trade mark is "any sign ... which is capable of
> distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other
> undertakings." (Trade Marks Act 1994, section 1(1).)
The IP number of the server could do this, as could the address or phone
number of the store, but I can't see that the trademark definition would
cover these. You are right that it is not nice and tidy. It is down to
personal interpretation, and I interpret it as big business doing
whatever the hell they like at the expense of the small businessman.
I bet if Microsoft had bought the marksandspencer.com domain, and
offered to sell it to M&S, £10,000 would have been classed as an
unbelieveable bargain!
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 2 days 19:33 - load: 1.09 1.05 1.02
Tim Jackson
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> You talk about making a 'reasonable profit'. I suspect that that
would
>> mean different things to different people. In the case of One In A
>> Million, clearly they hoped to get the maximum market value of
>> 'marksandspencer.com', taking account of the value this name might
have
>> to M&S.
>
>Yes. The market value of any commodity is the price the customer will
>pay. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.
I never said it was otherwise. But in this instance, the market value
of marksandspencer.com is driven almost entirely by the value of the
Marks & Spencer trade mark. That value was created by M&S themselves.
The only value that One In A Million added was the service of
registering the (already valuable) trade mark as a domain name. The
value of that service was what? Maybe around 100 pounds?
Then One In A Million offered to sell the name to M&S, at a much higher
price which reflected M&S's own input to its value. In other words,
they were trying to sell something which M&S already owned -- the trade
mark aspect of the domain name.
>I'm pretty sure there is no legal precedence that stops you from
selling
>a product simply because you are aiming it at only one possible
>customer! Especially if that customer has other options.
Yes, there is, if the product wasn't yours in the first place, and you
are trying to sell it back to the legitimate owner. Even if he does
have other options. And even if you have done some work to add further
value to it in the meantime.
>> Why should they pay
>> someone else good money for something which they themselves had
created
>> (and for which they had already paid out much money in the process)?
>
>They are not buying the company name or brand. They are simply buying
a
>memorable address.
This is the big fallacy of your argument. 'marksandspencer.com' is not
*just* an address. It is *also* a trade mark. It is intended to have
the function of identifying to customers that the website (and the goods
which will be advertised on it) are M&S's . That's the whole point of
trade marks.
In fact, 'marksandspencer.com' is intended to have the same effect on
internet customers as the trade mark "Marks & Spencer" does on a
physical sign over a shopfront. If it quacks like a duck and waddles
like a duck, then it is a duck.
It is a red herring to talk of "not buying the company name or brand".
Don't forget that trade marks can exist without being registered at the
Trade Marks Registry or at Companies House. You see trade marks all
around you every day, and they are valuable pieces of intellectual
property, whether they are registered or not.
You obviously have difficulty seeing that it's the trade mark aspect of
the marksandspencer.com domain name that makes it valuable. And that
M&S are the owners of that aspect already. Maybe your difficulty stems
from the intangible nature of intellectual property, and the fact that
intellectual property can be stolen without physically breaking into a
building and removing it. To quote you, "I'm sorry if you don't like
that, but that's the way it is".
[snip]
>'If no-one buys your car on the first attempt, you forfeit it, and they
>can buy it for £5 from the central bureau of cars, thus stopping
>profiteering on car sales' ...
But what would you say to a law that said that you forfeit the car if
you stole it from someone else? Even if, in the meantime, you had paid
the local authority fee to register it as a taxi, and you were trying to
sell it as a taxi rather than a private car?
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>> 2) Is it illegal to buy a domain name that is maybe used by a company
that
>> so far isnt online.
[snip]
>2. no
Actually, the answer is yes, it could be illegal, depending whether you
can legitimately use the domain name without infringing the other
company's rights under the laws of trade marks and passing off.
For example, if you sell washing powder under the trade mark "Champion",
I think you can probably register "champion.co.uk" as part of your
business, without infringing the rights of the firm which sells spark
plugs. (Unless they've already beaten you to it, of course.) That's
because your goods are so different from theirs that there wouldn't be
any infringement. (And that's only my opinion. I don't think any such
cases have been decided in court in this country. Get legal advice on
your own situation.)
But you can't register "marksandspencer.com" and set up a website to
sell clothes. Neither is it legal to register "marksandspencer.com"
with a view to selling it at a profit to Marks & Spencer plc. (See the
rest of this thread, where we are having a protracted discussion about
whether the law ought to be like that. But as it stands, that's what
the law is.)
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>The domain bbc.com would have been identified with another totally
different
>company a year ago.
>Don't know if you caught what I said earlier. But the BBC originally
had
>bbc.co.uk - then decided it wanted bbc.com. So they paid an estimated 2
Business
>Computing.
I know nothing about this case. But from the few details you have
given, I see nothing wrong with it (except perhaps from the point of
view of a TV licence payer, if the price really was 2 million).
It often happens that two different organisations have the same trade
mark. That's not a problem if they are in different lines of business.
When they try to register that trade mark as a domain name, they both
have equal rights to it, and it is decided on a "first come, first
served" basis.
Presumably Boston were legitimately using the trade mark BBC and had
registered bbc.com in an entirely proper manner. So it was theirs to
sell (or not sell) as they saw fit, at whatever price they could agree.
> They are now attempting to steal bbc.org off a small, long
>standing Canadian computer club. One law for the rich, another for the
poor.
Well, they've evidently not been successful so far, since the computer
club was still there when I looked last night. The site has a statement
from the club president, from which it appears that all that has
happened to date is that the BBC has written them a letter.
So I think it's a bit premature to start making judgements about the
case. But here's some wild speculation, which may or may not turn out
to be worth the time it takes you to read it.
The club president drops a hint in his statement, about how expensive it
would be for them to change their domain name. Maybe he is making the
same point to the BBC, and negotiating behind the scenes for a
profitable sale (on the same lines as you say the BBC did with Boston).
If so, that would be entirely fair, for the same reasons.
Or maybe the BBC will try legal action. Who knows what the outcome
would be. But my best guess is that the courts would say the computer
club was using bbc.org legitimately, and find in their favour. (Since
the BBC would presumably get legal advice that they are likely to lose,
they may decide not to sue.)
Or maybe the BBC had ideas about using Network Solutions Inc's dispute
procedure. As I explained in an earlier post, NSI's dispute policy has
been roundly criticised from all sides (including by lawyers). It
unfairly favoured trade mark owners in a situation like this. When
*legitimate* domain name owners took them to court, NSI and the trade
mark owners lost every time.
But NSI has now dropped its discredited policy, so it looks like the BBC
is too late to take advantage of it. As of about a month ago, there is
a new ICANN/WIPO dispute resolution procedure. So far, it has not given
any decisions, so it is too soon to say how it will work out.
Finally, maybe the BBC will just lose interest and go quietly away. It
happens quite a lot, but of course you usually don't get to hear about
it.
>My view is to use simplest solution, first come - first served and .reg
for
>trademarks. Tell everyone that .reg is for registered trademark
holders - no
>confusion [snip]
Except that you can have legal rights in a trade mark under the law of
passing off, without registering it. And two companies can both
legitimately have the same trade mark (registered or unregistered), if
they use it on different goods or services. And lots of registered
trade mark owners already have '.com' domain names, and aren't likely to
change them. And '.com' was *intended* for commercial sites, which is
the sort most likely to use trade marks.
So your solution doesn't solve the problems.
By the way, I had a quick look at the 'cybersquatting' page on your site
www.skilful.com. Your arguments would carry a lot more weight if you
actually looked a bit more closely at the facts behind the various cases
you discuss. They are all very different, in ways which you don't make
clear, and some have not yet reached a final decision. You have also
carefully ignored the many cases which have been decided in *favour* of
domain name owners, and which therefore don't fit in with your
arguments.
It is also wrong to lump all these cases under the 'cybersquatting'
label -- most of them aren't about cybersquatting. (Cybersquatting is
where someone else's trade mark is registered speculatively as a domain
name, by someone with no rights whatsoever to use the trade mark, in the
hopes of making a fast buck out of the innocent trade mark owner.)
But then, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
Tim Jackson
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> So you don't think that the public is going to identify
>> marksandspencer.com uniquely with Marks & Spencer plc? Who else
would
>> they reasonably identify it with? Are they going to look it up in
the
>> register of companies (or wherever) before making the natural
>> assumption?
>
>You misunderstand. The unique I am talking about is that Marks and
>Spencer PLC. have one registered name, so if you want information about
>Marks and Spencer PLC. the official place to ask first would be through
>the trademark, not the domain name.
Actually, I understood you perfectly. But I wanted to point out that
*you* have misunderstood the way trade marks work, and what they are
for.
The purpose of a trade mark isn't so that you can go and look up
something about the company that owns it in an official register. In
fact, many trade marks are not registered, but their owners can still
have rights in them under the law of passing off. Trade mark
registration just gives them further legal rights.
Rather, the purpose of a trade mark is to identify the goods and
services of different traders, in the course of trade (hence the term
*trade* mark). In other words, they are things that are for use in the
marketplace. And it won't have escaped your notice that the World Wide
Web is a huge marketplace, in which appropriate domain names can be used
like signs over shopfronts, identifying the goods and services to be
found within.
So 'marksandspencer.com' is not just a domain name. It is also an
excellent trade mark.
And we are agreed that there's only one company that can legally *use*
it. Where we differ is that I say there's only one company that can
legally *own* it, while you disagree. I think that's because you are
focussing narrowly on the fact that it is a domain name, whereas I'm
seeing it as a trade mark as well.
[snip]
>> And if it is taken by someone else instead, why is that not
equivalent
>> to hijacking it?
>
>How can you hijack something that nobody owns?
See above. It is a trade mark, as well as a domain name, and M&S own
that trade mark.
>If they wanted it, they
>should have had the foresight to register it first.
Quite possibly M&S didn't want it, as a domain name. But, as a trade
mark, they obviously wouldn't want anyone else to take it away or to
mess with it. And since it is *their* trade mark, they have the right
to prevent other people taking it or messing with it.
And you can't expect them to register domain names for every single
variant of their trade mark that someone might try to steal from them.
>If someone else
>thinks of it first, why should they then be able to take it away just
>like that?
Are you honestly saying that the name 'marksandspencer.com' was entirely
an original thought by One In A Million? That they devised the name all
by themselves, without looking round at trade marks in the High Street?
That it is purely coincidence that it happens to look remarkably like
M&S's trade mark?
No, One In A Million didn't think of it first. They just thought of
registering it as a domain name first. And they did so because they
knew it was a valuable trade mark, belonging to someone else.
>> Yes, I know that M&S have numerous possibilities they could choose
from
>> for their domain name. But the fact remains that marksandspencer.com
>> will be identified with them and them alone.
>
>Who cares.
M&S, for a start. And I can't say I blame them. They'd got no
guarantees that One In A Million weren't going to misuse their trade
mark, and they wanted to prevent that.
> If it is not used, but marksandspencer.co.uk is (by M&S),
>who is being harmed? NO-ONE!
[snip]
If you go back earlier in the thread, you'll remember that One In A
Million didn't have to pay damages, precisely because no harm had yet
been done. But they still had to give up the domain name, because it
was also a trade mark, which wasn't theirs. Had they had any sense,
they'd have done that before the legal action got under way. Then they
wouldn't have had to pay the legal costs either.
Tim Jackson
>Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> By definition, a trade mark is "any sign ... which is capable of
>> distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of
other
>> undertakings." (Trade Marks Act 1994, section 1(1).)
>
>The IP number of the server could do this, as could the address or
phone
>number of the store, but I can't see that the trademark definition
would
>cover these.
IP numbers, store addresses etc don't do this. They identify and
distinguish the server on which a website is held, or the building in
which the store is located, but not the goods advertised on the site or
sold in the store.
But 'marksandspencer.com' can do both. It is capable of identifying and
distinguishing the goods on a website, in the same way as the Marks &
Spencer sign over a shopfront identifies and distinguishes the goods in
the shop. For example, you wouldn't expect to find Bhs or Next goods in
a shop with a Marks and Spencer sign. Neither would you expect to find
Bhs or Next goods at 'marksandspencer.com'.
So 'marksandspencer.com' is an excellent trade mark.
> You are right that it is not nice and tidy. It is down to
>personal interpretation, and I interpret it as big business doing
>whatever the hell they like at the expense of the small businessman.
Whereas I interpret it as small opportunists doing whatever the hell
they like at the expense of a big business, trying to grab a share of
the value which M&S have created in their trade mark.
>I bet if Microsoft had bought the marksandspencer.com domain, and
>offered to sell it to M&S, £10,000 would have been classed as an
>unbelieveable bargain!
No, I'd expect M&S to take them to court and win, and for Microsoft to
have to pay the costs. (I'd also expect Microsoft not to be so stupid
in the first place. They've got valuable trade marks of their own to
protect.)
Duncan Clarke
>
> Duncan Clarke wrote in message
>
> >'If no-one buys your car on the first attempt, you forfeit it, and they
> >can buy it for £5 from the central bureau of cars, thus stopping
> >profiteering on car sales' ...
>
> But what would you say to a law that said that you forfeit the car if
> you stole it from someone else? Even if, in the meantime, you had paid
> the local authority fee to register it as a taxi, and you were trying to
> sell it as a taxi rather than a private car?
How can M&S own marksandspencer.com if it does not exist? Until OIAM
registered it, this was the case. As it was they who registered it,
they own it.
--
Duncan Clarke
--
Mail: dun...@fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Inline skating
Web: http://www.fuzzyhead.freeserve.co.uk | Air Cooled VW's
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.12-10 - uptime: 44 min - load: 1.09 1.03 0.92
Tim Jackson
[snip]
>How can M&S own marksandspencer.com if it does not exist? Until OIAM
>registered it, this was the case. As it was they who registered it,
>they own it.
M&S own the Marks & Spencer trade mark. It's only as a domain name
registration that 'marksandspencer.com' didn't exist. The trade mark
did exist, and it belonged to M&S.
'marksandspencer.com' takes that trade mark. Merely changing '&' to
'and', removing the spaces, and adding '.com' doesn't materially alter
the trade mark.
Garry Anderson
news:858dbl$6oq$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Hello Tim,
Sure you realise I was annoyed at the bullying tactics the BBC were using
against the poorer opponents. As licence payer also am not surprised they
are keeping amount quiet. Am disappointed with anyone that sees nothing
wrong with BBC starting negotiations by sending a cease-and-desist letter,
to a dot org - who obviously are not stitching them up. Mind you - quite
right, we brits gave up that fair play stuff years ago. I am joking, don't
you think there are probably many non-profit organisations in US / UK having
those initials, with more right to it than the BBC? These orgs wouldn't have
the money to make a challenge against the BBC, had BBC got it. So do you
think this domain name system is really fair? I think it has been *made* a
right screw up, very much in favour of business. I hope the .org get fair
and *proportionate* amount for it.
> And two companies can both
> legitimately have the same trade mark (registered or unregistered), if
> they use it on different goods or services.
I assure you, there is no problem that you can give that can not be sorted.
I have thought about it.
It is so easy:
Pizzas maker: domino.food.reg
Games manufacturer: domino.game.reg
And country:
Pizzas maker: domino.food.reg.us
Games manuf: domino.game.reg.uk
Not being racist - even different language within foriegn country can route
to different page or IP address:
English: domino.food.reg.uk
Mexican: domino.taco.reg.uk (don't know Mexican for food)
This is not my idea - I am not an egotist ;-) skilful.com was the only
domain left that fitted me exactly. No truthfully, just applied common
sense and logic to get that one.
IT IS NO USE SAYING THEY WANT SHORT DOT COMS - THEY ALL CAN'T BE DOMINO.COM
I am *CERTAIN* the authorities thought of this idea first. I am but a poor
no-mark scouser <g> look at their *VAST* rescources. The idea is simple and
logical, how can they fail not too have discovered it first?
Even if given all the time in the world, this is the *ONLY* way they can
accomodate *ALL* possibilites. *BUT* it does not give them the right to say
what the likes of me or you can do. This is the most *EASY* way to solve
*ALL* the problems of cybersquatting, coming across sex sites by accident,
consumer confussion and fraud. It will saving billions of pounds from fraud
with the TLD of .reg guaranteeing source. Why are the authorities trying to
make it difficult? Ask yourself that question, from your reply I am sure you
can answer it. I am not being patronising, it is easy, just apply common
sense and logic.
> And lots of registered
> trade mark owners already have '.com' domain names, and aren't likely to
> change them. And '.com' was *intended* for commercial sites, which is
> the sort most likely to use trade marks.
MANY businesses cannot have the dot com they want ie Dominos pizza in UK and
Dominos games in US. This ideal solution will give them all same name in the
same TLD. Talking about intentions - The Internet was never intended for
business. There are more *individual* people with dot coms than business -
they will always be the biggest users of the Internet. People are intended
to have dot coms, also dot nets / orgs / co.uk / etc. Please tell me, what
else are they *intended* to have instead?
> By the way, I had a quick look at the 'cybersquatting' page on your site
> www.skilful.com. Your arguments would carry a lot more weight if you
> actually looked a bit more closely at the facts behind the various cases
> you discuss. They are all very different, in ways which you don't make
> clear, and some have not yet reached a final decision. You have also
> carefully ignored the many cases which have been decided in *favour* of
> domain name owners, and which therefore don't fit in with your
> arguments.
I just checked it, mostinsightful.com is still there - suits you sir. Very
insightful has gone.
I was not constructing a thesis, just using politicians tactics and pointing
out what is wrong. The main point I tried to get over, was the OVERALL way
it is heading (I truthfully believe it is on purpose).
*****You are not going to be able to register a domain to complain about a
bad product, nor one to satire anything, nor one in homage to your favourite
football team. Free speech will be dead.*****
No I am not a nutcase, it is logically the way it is going. Nevertheless,
you are quite right on your overall assesment, I will see about updating to
give a more balanced view. I have bad health problems and have had to retire
because of them. For my pastime have got a big project on (over a month
behind on 1UK.org and 1USA.org). Also have environmental project that is
very urgent. So at my slow crawl it will be quite a few weeks before update.
Thanks for reading and your constructive critism.
> It is also wrong to lump all these cases under the 'cybersquatting'
> label -- most of them aren't about cybersquatting. (Cybersquatting is
> where someone else's trade mark is registered speculatively as a domain
> name, by someone with no rights whatsoever to use the trade mark, in the
> hopes of making a fast buck out of the innocent trade mark owner.)
From page 'Fly YOUR Flag' on my site - "Some commentators, inc Steven Levy
http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0115_1.htm
(newsweek.com), calls anyone who acquires a domain for purposes of financial
speculation a cybersquatter." Just one of the reasons why I was ranting mad
(you are right there also).
*****It does not matter anyway. I should be, for free speech, allowed to
open a fan sight for my favourite person - tonyBLURT.com*****
I have just one that falls in this "grey area" which is not for sale. It is
not stopping another domain. Though I do say so myself, it is good - to be
used for environmental awareness, the publicity will be tremendous. It even
gets hits from link on Government site (obviously unknown to them).
WHY shouldn't I be allowed to? Is this not what the US first amendment is
about? Why should we be afforded less rights to free speech?
They could not have planned to make a worse mess than this DNS. All these
years and they have done *nothing practical*. They have used this time to
*ALLOW* businesses to bully people out of their domains. Archie comics even
*TRIED* against the girl Veronica. They would have suceeded exept for her
dad fighting hard for his little daughter, putting up a web site, organized
write-in protests, etc (for a bloody dot org for * sake). Veronica.org not
bloody Archie.org, it could have easily been a fan site for the veronica
character and they would have taken it away, as it would dilute the
trademark - still you know what I think. It is all so *OBVIOUS*, it makes me
rant. It is elementary my dear 'Most'. Come on, tell me - what have I
missed, were am I wrong?
If you were defending them in court, you would say - it was just through
*INANE stupidity* that they allowed this situation to develop. I do not
believe they are incompetent, far from it.
Regards,
Garry.
www.skilful.com
Tim Jackson
>>
>> Duncan Clarke wrote in message
>>
>> >'If no-one buys your car on the first attempt, you forfeit it, and
they
>> >can buy it for £5 from the central bureau of cars, thus stopping
>> >profiteering on car sales' ...
>>
>> But what would you say to a law that said that you forfeit the car if
>> you stole it from someone else? Even if, in the meantime, you had
paid
>> the local authority fee to register it as a taxi, and you were trying
to
>> sell it as a taxi rather than a private car?
>
>registered it, this was the case. As it was they who registered it,
>they own it.
Re-reading this, you evidently misunderstood my analogy.
The stolen car is analogous to the stolen trade mark. The registration
of the car as a taxi is analogous to the registration of the trade mark
as a domain name. Since the car is stolen, the thief has to forfeit it.
In the process, he also loses his taxi registration. Since the trade
mark was stolen, OIAM had to forfeit it and also lost the domain name
registration.
One difference is that when OIAM stole the trade mark, they had to make
some minor changes to it for domain name registration purposes. But
those changes don't materially alter the trade mark -- it's still M&S's
trade mark. If you like, think of it as analogous to installing an
illuminated taxi sign on the roof of the car, and maybe giving it a
yellow paint job like other taxis.
Another difference is that when OIAM stole the trade mark, M&S were able
to continue using the original. The owner of the stolen car wouldn't
have been able to. But intellectual property is like that. If I make
an illegal copy of your website, you still have the original. But I've
infringed your copyright, and you can demand that I give up the copy.
Michael J. Rogers
>
> Hello Michael,
> The domain bbc.com would have been identified with another totally different
> company a year ago.
> Don't know if you caught what I said earlier. But the BBC originally had
> bbc.co.uk - then decided it wanted bbc.com. So they paid an estimated 2
> Computing. They are now attempting to steal bbc.org off a small, long
> standing Canadian computer club. One law for the rich, another for the poor.
I didn't know this. Has anything come about with them trying to get
bbc.org?
--
www.shortime.co.uk
ICQ# 22092337
Tim Jackson
long
>> standing Canadian computer club. One law for the rich, another for
the poor.
>
No. See my earlier response to this post of Garry's.
Tim Jackson
>Tim Jackson <T...@winterbourne.ANTISPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:858dbl$6oq$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>Hello Tim,
>
>Sure you realise I was annoyed at the bullying tactics the BBC were
using
Welcome to the real world.
That kind of tactic was commonplace years before the Internet was even
dreamed of. For example "pay this huge unexpected bill within 7 days or
we'll sue you".
You are entitled to campaign against it if you wish. But don't confuse
it with domain name problems or trade mark problems.
>> And two companies can both
>> legitimately have the same trade mark (registered or unregistered),
if
>> they use it on different goods or services.
>
>I assure you, there is no problem that you can give that can not be
sorted.
>I have thought about it.
>
>It is so easy:
>Pizzas maker: domino.food.reg
>Games manufacturer: domino.game.reg
>
>And country:
>Pizzas maker: domino.food.reg.us
>Games manuf: domino.game.reg.uk
And when Old McDonalds Farm in Scotland starts a lucrative business
exporting oven-ready turkeys to the US and Europe, the resulting domain
name dispute with the burger chain is solved how? The farm takes
mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg while the burger chain has
mcdonalds.hamburgers-and-fries.food.reg?
Get real. The burger chain isn't going to give up mcdonalds.com, and
Old McDonalds Farm isn't going to want anything as cumbersome as
mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg (and certainly not
mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg.uk, if they are operating internationally) .
And why should either company be forced into it, if something else will
keep them both happy without upsetting anyone else? Such as the farm
accepting that the burger chain got to mcdonalds.com first, quite
legitimately, and registering (say) mcdonalds-farm.com instead?
'.com' and '.co.uk' etc were intended for commercial internet users,
which is what both these McDonalds are. You are going to force anyone
who uses a trade mark to use '.reg' or '.reg.uk' etc instead. And just
about all commercial companies use a trade mark (perhaps not registered,
perhaps just their company name, but a trade mark nevertheless).
So there will be no commercial companies left on '.com', where they were
intended to be. Not even your own site, since part of it offers a
commercial service selling domain names, and you use the trade mark
SKILFUL. All you will do is move many of the present problems from
'.com' to '.reg'.
[snip]
> .... Talking about intentions - The Internet was never intended for
>business. There are more *individual* people with dot coms than
business -
>they will always be the biggest users of the Internet. People are
intended
>to have dot coms, also dot nets / orgs / co.uk / etc. Please tell me,
what
>else are they *intended* to have instead?
Dead wrong. These domains were *not* intended for individuals, though
many do now use them because they have nowhere else to go. Remember
that when the domain name system was devised, there were very few
individuals on the net (except perhaps in universities, which use '.edu'
or '.ac.uk').
'.com', was created *specifically* for businesses, when they started to
use the net, to keep them separate from everybody else. '.co.uk'
followed suit.
'.org' was for non-profit organisations. (Deliberately provocative
query: such as a theoretically non-profit public broadcasting
organisation like the BBC?)
'.net' was for organisations involved in operating the net itself.
If your problem is that individuals have no home of their own at
present, and are getting messed up by businesses in '.com', surely a
better answer would be to create (say) '.ind' or '.ind.uk' specifically
for individuals. Though I am not suggesting this seriously; I just want
to show that there are better ideas than yours.
Actually, I suspect that many of the individuals with their own domain
names have thoughts of becoming commercial, so would want to stay in
'.com' (problems and all), rather than to move to '.ind'. Or they would
want to be in '.reg', if you get your way.
And you will squeal at the inconvenience to the individuals who do move
to '.ind'. But it's far less than the inconvenience to a business of
moving to '.reg'. Especially since, unlike me, you seem to envisage
*forcing* people to move.
[snipped various things, including particular domain name disputes. I'm
not prepared to discuss these cases without knowing the facts behind
them. You *still* have not provided any references to enable me to look
up the true facts. And I'm not going to just accept what you say, since
in other cases which I *do* know about you have glossed over the facts,
and assumed wrongly that they are all the same.]
>> It is also wrong to lump all these cases under the 'cybersquatting'
>> label -- most of them aren't about cybersquatting. (Cybersquatting
is
>> where someone else's trade mark is registered speculatively as a
domain
>> name, by someone with no rights whatsoever to use the trade mark, in
the
>> hopes of making a fast buck out of the innocent trade mark owner.)
>
>From page 'Fly YOUR Flag' on my site - "Some commentators, inc Steven
Levy
>http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0115_1.htm
>(newsweek.com), calls anyone who acquires a domain for purposes of
financial
>speculation a cybersquatter."
At last! A reference that can be checked!
Mr Levy actually gives *two* definitions: mine (which defines it as
registering someone else's trade mark) and the broader one which you
quote above (which doesn't require that). Let me make it clear that I
prefer my definition, and generally would not complain about people who
register generic words for resale.
But both definitions agree that cybersquatting involves someone who
"acquires a domain for purposes of financial speculation", rather than
acquiring it for his own legitimate use. Most of your cases are not in
this category (as far as I can tell). Therefore they are *not* about
cybersquatting, however you define it. Just another example of how you
ignore the facts and assume that all cases are the same.
Garry Anderson
> You are entitled to campaign against it if you wish. But don't confuse
> it with domain name problems or trade mark problems.
You have confused me. If the BBC say the dot org is using their *trademark*
in the *domain name*, what is that then?
> Get real. The burger chain isn't going to give up mcdonalds.com, and
> Old McDonalds Farm isn't going to want anything as cumbersome as
> mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg (and certainly not
> mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg.uk, if they are operating internationally) .
You are making things over complicated, you need only one shorter trademark
area. Also it is trademark law that says there must be no consumer
confusion - NOT ME. I am just explaining the best way to go about it.
> And why should either company be forced into it, if something else will
> keep them both happy without upsetting anyone else? Such as the farm
> accepting that the burger chain got to mcdonalds.com first, quite
> legitimately, and registering (say) mcdonalds-farm.com instead?
What about all those thousands of self employed mcdonald small businesses?
What about if I got mcdonalds.com first - to complain about their crappy
burgers, after I found mouse head in one? I would want to warn my fellow
citizens about what they might be eating. ***Or do you not believe in free
speech? You know, the first amendment et al.***
Richard Brodie sums it up in misc.legal.computing today 11 Jan 00. It is
about the WIPO arbitration procedures :
"And since there are over 200 languages spoken in the world, it is highly
likely that any reasonably short pronounceable sequence of letters that is a
word in one of those languages, will be either identical, or confusingly
similar to some potentially trademarked word in one or more of the other
languages" - I agree, it is basically a license to steal domains off people.
> '.com' and '.co.uk' etc were intended for commercial internet users,
> which is what both these McDonalds are. You are going to force anyone
> who uses a trade mark to use '.reg' or '.reg.uk' etc instead. And just
> about all commercial companies use a trade mark (perhaps not registered,
> perhaps just their company name, but a trade mark nevertheless).
The problem is in the trademark arena - it makes common sense to isolate the
problem. The obvious logical solution, as they can only have one trademark
in each area, is to incorporate that into the name. Same with country.
> So there will be no commercial companies left on '.com', where they were
> intended to be. Not even your own site, since part of it offers a
> commercial service selling domain names, and you use the trade mark
> SKILFUL. All you will do is move many of the present problems from
> '.com' to '.reg'.
When devising or revising a system it is always best to start with a blank
sheet. It will create a right muddle to change around the dot coms.
> Dead wrong. These domains were *not* intended for individuals, though
> many do now use them because they have nowhere else to go. Remember
> that when the domain name system was devised, there were very few
> individuals on the net (except perhaps in universities, which use '.edu'
> or '.ac.uk').
So what the hell have they done over the last decade to solve this? And why
is that do you think? Take a couple of minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and
think about it.
> If your problem is that individuals have no home of their own at
> present, and are getting messed up by businesses in '.com', surely a
> better answer would be to create (say) '.ind' or '.ind.uk' specifically
> for individuals. Though I am not suggesting this seriously; I just want
> to show that there are better ideas than yours.
I had a *very* similar idea myself - in conjuction with .reg. Sorry, you
didn't beat me to that one. There are few others you are missing also.
> Actually, I suspect that many of the individuals with their own domain
> names have thoughts of becoming commercial, so would want to stay in
> '.com' (problems and all), rather than to move to '.ind'. Or they would
> want to be in '.reg', if you get your way.
The individuals could keep the dot coms *as well* on principal first come -
first served. The .ind could be used so *everyone* has a personal address.
I have thought about it. You miss the point, it is only conflict of
trademarks that are the problem.
> And you will squeal at the inconvenience to the individuals who do move
> to '.ind'. But it's far less than the inconvenience to a business of
> moving to '.reg'. Especially since, unlike me, you seem to envisage
> *forcing* people to move.
Again, they would not move, but get that as well. What else do you suggest
when trademark law is the problem? I would prefer to let companies keep dot
coms AS WELL - forwarding to the .reg, but according to trademark law, it
will cause consumer confusion. There is no other answer - UNLESS trademark
law is changed to say the final identifier (of .reg) is sufficient.
> [snipped various things, including particular domain name disputes. I'm
> not prepared to discuss these cases without knowing the facts behind
> them. You *still* have not provided any references to enable me to look
> up the true facts. And I'm not going to just accept what you say, since
> in other cases which I *do* know about you have glossed over the facts,
> and assumed wrongly that they are all the same.]
You know the facts about eToys.com getting a court order to stop etoy.com -
despite etoy being 2 years prior. IMHO the judge should have applied the
order against eToys instead. etoy have only just about survived. Etoys even
tried to censor what work etoy could put on the site as a condition of
dropping charges. A smaller group with less support, as nearly all are,
would have caved in. This highlights the bullying by companies against
smaller opponents - individuals stand no chance. This was a supposed
reputable law firm that took these unjust actions.
> Mr Levy actually gives *two* definitions: mine (which defines it as
> registering someone else's trade mark) and the broader one which you
> quote above (which doesn't require that). Let me make it clear that I
> prefer my definition, and generally would not complain about people who
> register generic words for resale.
Problem is both are being used. Anyone accuses me of illegalities better
watch out.
> But both definitions agree that cybersquatting involves someone who
> "acquires a domain for purposes of financial speculation", rather than
> acquiring it for his own legitimate use. Most of your cases are not in
> this category (as far as I can tell). Therefore they are *not* about
> cybersquatting, however you define it. Just another example of how you
> ignore the facts and assume that all cases are the same.
There are whole economies is built on financial speculation - obviously not
legitimate way to earn money. Better withdraw my shares, I feel like a
criminal now. Only anti-capitalists would say something like that. How is it
any different than buying small parcels of land? You have to realise that
the Internet is Infinity - it can grow as large as needed. So there is
plenty for everybody, some areas more desirable than the rest.
So I think not. The authorities brought about the 'crime' of
Cybersquatting - a word they use to give it an illegal connotation - to
unfairly twist and prejudice public opinion. It does not exist. They made
this word up. It is the common sense that the DNS and the authorities around
it are corrupt. How can it get in such a mess. Think about it, with all this
expertise around them, how can they JUST be grossly incompetent?
Regards,
Garry
Garry Anderson
There are probably over 100 domino businesses (or sound alikes) worldwide.
Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused - so if you saw
domino.com advertised - which one of the 100 businesses do you think own it?
Confused? Then the system does not work, they are stealing domains off
people under false pretences.
> You are entitled to campaign against it if you wish. But don't confuse
> it with domain name problems or trade mark problems.
You have confused me. If the BBC say the dot org is using their *trademark*
in the *domain name*, what is that then?
> Get real. The burger chain isn't going to give up mcdonalds.com, and
> Old McDonalds Farm isn't going to want anything as cumbersome as
> mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg (and certainly not
> mcdonalds.turkeys.food.reg.uk, if they are operating internationally) .
You are making things over complicated, you need only one shorter trademark
area. Also it is trademark law that says there must be no consumer
confusion - NOT ME. I am just explaining the best way to go about it.
> And why should either company be forced into it, if something else will
> keep them both happy without upsetting anyone else? Such as the farm
> accepting that the burger chain got to mcdonalds.com first, quite
> legitimately, and registering (say) mcdonalds-farm.com instead?
What about all those thousands of self employed mcdonald small businesses?
What about if I got mcdonalds.com first - to complain about their crappy
burgers, after I found mouse head in one? I would want to warn my fellow
citizens about what they might be eating. ***Or do you not believe in free
speech? You know, the first amendment et al.***
Richard Brodie sums it up in misc.legal.computing today 11 Jan 00. It is
about the WIPO arbitration procedures :
"And since there are over 200 languages spoken in the world, it is highly
likely that any reasonably short pronounceable sequence of letters that is a
word in one of those languages, will be either identical, or confusingly
similar to some potentially trademarked word in one or more of the other
languages" - I agree, it is basically a license to steal domains off people.
> '.com' and '.co.uk' etc were intended for commercial internet users,
> which is what both these McDonalds are. You are going to force anyone
> who uses a trade mark to use '.reg' or '.reg.uk' etc instead. And just
> about all commercial companies use a trade mark (perhaps not registered,
> perhaps just their company name, but a trade mark nevertheless).
The problem is in the trademark arena - it makes common sense to isolate the
problem. The obvious logical solution, as they can only have one trademark
in each area, is to incorporate that into the name. Same with country.
> So there will be no commercial companies left on '.com', where they were
> intended to be. Not even your own site, since part of it offers a
> commercial service selling domain names, and you use the trade mark
> SKILFUL. All you will do is move many of the present problems from
> '.com' to '.reg'.
When devising or revising a system it is always best to start with a blank
sheet. It will create a right muddle to change around the dot coms.
> Dead wrong. These domains were *not* intended for individuals, though
> many do now use them because they have nowhere else to go. Remember
> that when the domain name system was devised, there were very few
> individuals on the net (except perhaps in universities, which use '.edu'
> or '.ac.uk').
So what the hell have they done over the last decade to solve this? And why
is that do you think? Take a couple of minutes. Go have a cup of coffee and
think about it.
> If your problem is that individuals have no home of their own at
> present, and are getting messed up by businesses in '.com', surely a
> better answer would be to create (say) '.ind' or '.ind.uk' specifically
> for individuals. Though I am not suggesting this seriously; I just want
> to show that there are better ideas than yours.
I had a *very* similar idea myself - in conjuction with .reg. Sorry, you
didn't beat me to that one. There are few others you are missing also.
> Actually, I suspect that many of the individuals with their own domain
> names have thoughts of becoming commercial, so would want to stay in
> '.com' (problems and all), rather than to move to '.ind'. Or they would
> want to be in '.reg', if you get your way.
The individuals could keep the dot coms *as well* on principal first come -
first served. The .ind could be used so *everyone* has a personal address.
I have thought about it. You miss the point, it is only conflict of
trademarks that are the problem.
> And you will squeal at the inconvenience to the individuals who do move
> to '.ind'. But it's far less than the inconvenience to a business of
> moving to '.reg'. Especially since, unlike me, you seem to envisage
> *forcing* people to move.
Again, they would not move, but get that as well. What else do you suggest
when trademark law is the problem? I would prefer to let companies keep dot
coms AS WELL - forwarding to the .reg, but according to trademark law, it
will cause consumer confusion. There is no other answer - UNLESS trademark
law is changed to say the final identifier (of .reg) is sufficient.
> [snipped various things, including particular domain name disputes. I'm
> not prepared to discuss these cases without knowing the facts behind
> them. You *still* have not provided any references to enable me to look
> up the true facts. And I'm not going to just accept what you say, since
> in other cases which I *do* know about you have glossed over the facts,
> and assumed wrongly that they are all the same.]
You know the facts about eToys.com getting a court order to stop etoy.com -
despite etoy being 2 years prior. IMHO the judge should have applied the
order against eToys instead. etoy have only just about survived. Etoys even
tried to censor what work etoy could put on the site as a condition of
dropping charges. A smaller group with less support, as nearly all are,
would have caved in. This highlights the bullying by companies against
smaller opponents - individuals stand no chance. This was a supposed
reputable law firm that took these unjust actions.
> Mr Levy actually gives *two* definitions: mine (which defines it as
> registering someone else's trade mark) and the broader one which you
> quote above (which doesn't require that). Let me make it clear that I
> prefer my definition, and generally would not complain about people who
> register generic words for resale.
Problem is both are being used. Anyone accuses me of illegalities better
watch out.
> But both definitions agree that cybersquatting involves someone who
> "acquires a domain for purposes of financial speculation", rather than
> acquiring it for his own legitimate use. Most of your cases are not in
> this category (as far as I can tell). Therefore they are *not* about
> cybersquatting, however you define it. Just another example of how you
> ignore the facts and assume that all cases are the same.
There are whole economies is built on financial speculation - obviously not
legitimate way to earn money. Better withdraw my shares, I feel like a
criminal now. Only anti-capitalists would say something like that. How is it
any different than buying small parcels of land? You have to realise that
the Internet is Infinity - it can grow as large as needed. So there is
plenty for everybody, some areas more desirable than the rest.
So I think not. The authorities brought about the 'crime' of
Cybersquatting - a word they use to give it an illegal connotation - to
unfairly twist and prejudice public opinion. It does not exist. They made
this word up. It is the common sense that the DNS and the authorities around
it are corrupt. How can it get in such a mess. Think about it, with all this
expertise around them, how can they JUST be grossly incompetent?
Regards,
Garry
www.skilful.com
Tim Jackson
>Hello Tim,
>
>There are probably over 100 domino businesses (or sound alikes)
worldwide.
>Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused - so if you
saw
>domino.com advertised - which one of the 100 businesses do you think
own it?
You oversimplify. Trade mark law says the consumer should not be
confused by the use of a confusingly similar mark ***on similar goods or
services***. If the goods or services are different, there is no trade
mark problem.
In these circumstances, a visit to the website will easily tell the
consumer which of the Domino companies it is. If it's not the one he
wanted, there is no legal problem. And finding the correct site will be
just as difficult with your domino.pizza.reg.uk system as with the
current system, because of the extremely complicated nature of what you
propose. (Especially if you are planning to confine it to *registered*
trade marks -- how is the consumer going to know whether or not the
trade mark is registered?)
>Confused? Then the system does not work, they are stealing domains off
>people under false pretences.
A complete non-sequitur.
>> You are entitled to campaign against it if you wish. But don't
confuse
>> it with domain name problems or trade mark problems.
>
>You have confused me. If the BBC say the dot org is using their
*trademark*
>in the *domain name*, what is that then?
You cut out the relevant part of what I said. I said you were entitled
to campaign about the tactic of opening negotiations with a threatening
letter. That's a widespread practice, not specific to trade marks or
domain names.
Quite separately from your disapproval of such tactics, you need to sort
out in your mind what you believe is wrong with the way trade mark law
overlaps with domain names. I think you find it impossible to do that,
because you wrongly treat all cases as being the same (and as being part
of some mysterious conspiracy).
For example, here are some different kinds of cases for you to think
about. (References to examples of some of them at
http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. When I mention the courts, I usually
mean the US courts, because that's where most cases have been heard.)
1. Do you believe that it is wrong to register someone else's trade
mark as a domain name, when you have no right to use it, and your
intention is to try to sell it back to them at a high price? I do, and
so do the courts. (This is what most people define as cybersquatting.)
2. Do you believe it is wrong to register a domain name which is
confusingly similar to someone else's trade mark, when you have no right
to use it, and your intention is to try to sell similar goods in
competition? I do, and so do the courts. (This is straightforward,
traditional trade mark infringement or passing off. The legal questions
would be exactly the same if it was an advert in the traditional media.
The fact that a domain name is involved is neither here nor there).
3. Do you believe it is wrong to register a domain name which is
similar to someone else's trade mark, in order to open a parody website?
I think that's a complicated question, and the courts could find either
way, depending on the facts of the case. There's a conflict between, on
one hand, the right of free speech and, on the other hand, the trade
mark owner's right not to be libelled and not to have the value of his
trade mark diminished in the minds of the public. And, as in no.2
above, the legal questions would be the same if the parody was in the
traditional media. So again the fact that a domain name is involved is
neither here nor there.
4. Do you believe it is wrong to register generic (non-trademark) words
and common names as domain names, with a view to resale. I don't, and
neither do the courts. See for example the avery.com case discussed at
http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. I assume you would approve. (This is
Steven Levy's broader definition of cybersquatting. Maybe a few people
agree with him, but they are in a minority.)
5. Do you believe it is wrong for a trade mark owner to try to grab a
domain name from someone who has registered it for legitimate, innocent
use, not intending to use it in a way which is detrimental to the trade
mark owner? I do, and so do the courts. Again, I assume you would
approve. (This is "reverse domain name hijacking").
This "reverse domain name hijacking" category should have grabbed your
attention, because that is the category of the bbc.org, etoy.com and
veronica.org cases. (As far as I can tell from the relatively few facts
available to me.) I'll emphasise what I've just said in case you
didn't get it. The courts have regularly held *against* the trade mark
owner and *in favour* of the domain name owner in such cases.
References again at http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. Doesn't quite fit
in with your conspiracy theory, does it?
So what went wrong in the the bbc.org, veronica.org and etoy.com cases?
Well, nothing has gone wrong yet in the bbc.org case. I've told you my
opinion, that if it did go to court, the small computer club would
likely win. And I've speculated on various ways the case might develop,
all of them scenarios which would favour the computer club. The only
issue so far is the tactic of opening negotiations with a threatening
letter. But that's not a fault in the law which applies to trade marks
and domain names.
(Another issue which might come up later in the bbc.org case is that
litigation is expensive, and the computer club might not be able to
afford it. But again, that's a general problem, not one that's specific
to trade marks and domain names. The answer is to develop dispute
settlement procedures which are cheaper, and that is indeed happening.)
How about veronica.org? Well, Veronica is still online, at
www.veronica.cc. If Archie had a good case against her, which they
don't seem to have, then they could complain about this just as strongly
as they could about veronica.org. But as far as I have been able to
ascertain, Archie have dropped the case, and it has never been to court.
I suspect (but this is just a guess) that Veronica has been one of the
victims of Network Solutions' discredited dispute policy. I've already
said several times in this thread that they were wrong to suspend
people's domain names in circumstances like this. And lots of people
agree with me. So much so that the policy has now been abandoned in
favour of a new, independently operated one. (Note, incidentally, that
Network Solutions doesn't operate the .cc domain, so Veronica's site
seems to have remained untouched since it moved there.)
Finally, the etoy.com case. I agree that something seems to have gone
wrong, and I think I can guess what. I asked for opinions in
news:misc.int-property, which is frequented by US intellectual property
lawyers. I got this reply:
[quote]
I'll have to find the decision, because it simply doesn't make sense.
Don't forget, too, that there are more than a few district court judges
who simply don't "get" trademark law. I can't say, without more,
whether this is one of them.
[end quote]
That accords with my own experience. I've worked on a number of
intellectual property cases in the US District Courts, and the judges
often knew *zilch* about the law of intellectual property. It had to be
explained to them. That's because they are general lawyers, dealing
with everything from contract disputes to bankruptcy to drug dealing.
And intellectual property (including trade marks) is highly specialised.
The other factor in the etoy.com case, I strongly suspect, is that it
was merely a preliminary decision. It wasn't a full hearing at which
all the facts and evidence could be demonstrated to the judge, and the
law explained in detail. And perhaps etoy didn't put up a very good
defence. They still have the opportunity to do so at the full hearing.
So, I may be wrong, but my guess is that the etoy case didn't go wrong
because of faults in the law of trade marks and domain names. The
faults are in the general nature of the US legal system, and can equally
produce injustices in cases which have nothing to do with domain names.
Once again, this doesn't support your theory that there is a conspiracy
over domain names.
I invite you to do some research on the other cases which feature on
your website. Find out which of the above categories they fall into (or
maybe some are different again from those above). Then decide if
something really did go wrong, and try to find out why. Only then will
you have the material to decide if there really is a conspiracy, or
whether the problem was something more general and not related to domain
name issues.
[snipped remainder through lack of time to respond. I may come back to
it another day.]
Garry Anderson
> You oversimplify. Trade mark law says the consumer should not be
> confused by the use of a confusingly similar mark ***on similar goods or
> services***. If the goods or services are different, there is no trade
> mark problem.
How do you justify the fact you can have 2 or even very many trademarks
***EXACTLY THE SAME*** in different countries selling ***SIMILAR GOODS OR
SERVICES*** over the Internet? It should be VERY obvious to anyone that it
is not DNS compatible. You may as well let everyone use exactly the same TM
in the same country. This is what I am saying when I call the trademark
system inappropriate (fly YOUR flag page) for the Domain Naming System. This
makes using it a *PATHETIC JOKE*. It either shows the total ineptitude of
those responsible or, given they are very intelligent people, my reasoning
of their plan. Just think about it for five minutes, I KNOW that I am right.
Why else bring in a cybersquatting law, with untold number of TM names and
sound-alikes? It means there are also untold numbers of domains that could
be stolen from owners. This is on top of the fact you can not get your
favourite teams name for your web site. It is all about free speech (US
first amendment) and control of the people. It is common sense and logic.
They are the selling same goods or services as other businesses with the
same TM (TM definition: distinguish his goods from similar wares of other
firms). A third world country could open copy-cat businesses. Doesn't work
does it?
***Why hasn't nobody picked up on this simple observation?*** Looking at
situation, after seeing myself called a cybersquatter because of it, this
was very obvious to me - I am just a normal bloke who applies simple common
sense and logic to problems.
I simplify when there is no need to make things difficult. The problem is
straightforward. Some people however, perhaps through self interest, seem to
want to make things complicated all the time. ;-)
Have in mind for rest of this post that using .reg - their would be no
possibility of fraud, cybersquatting, using TM name, etc. When solving
problems you have to start with a blank piece of paper, it is no use messing
about with current system. It is totally obvious doing this will cause many
problems. If you or anyone you know is in a position to push for change, get
in touch with me.
> In these circumstances, a visit to the website will easily tell the
> consumer which of the Domino companies it is. If it's not the one he
> wanted, there is no legal problem.
Apologies, I did not explain myself well (one of my failings), my site has
now been ammended to explain a bit better. I hope you don't mind, but have
used your opening line above and will credit you with quote if you so wish.
People have been told the *LIE* that a reason domains were being taken from
the legal owner (person who bought them) was because public would be going
to a site which was not what they wanted. For example eToys.com complaining
about etoys artistic endevours. So it is a deliberate untruth, a twisting of
facts, quite simply - a LIE.
In the case of domino, there are nearly 100 other registered companies in
the USA alone. There could be a thousand worldwide. So even if confined to
US alone - odds are average 100 to 1 of getting wrong company. With the
pizza place being million to one odds on favourite. *The overwhelming odds
are you are going to come across the wrong one anyway.* My site now includes
the line "So, the millions of you that wanted a pizza, who have been told
this was to stop you getting the wrong domain - now know, it is a lie. All
the hundreds of others [companies in world] wanted it as well - so why can
it not belong to anybody?"
> And finding the correct site will be
> just as difficult with your domino.pizza.reg.uk system as with the
> current system, because of the extremely complicated nature of what you
> propose. (Especially if you are planning to confine it to *registered*
> trade marks -- how is the consumer going to know whether or not the
> trade mark is registered?)
Extremely complicated? So on that basis you would call the area codes on
telephone system mind boggling. Crumbs, how do you manage trademark law? I
am suprised you can get the top off the toothpaste in the morning ;-) Just a
joke. It is not complicated at all - especially as it is text based and not
numeric, it is more natural than area codes. The consumer will know if the
trademark is registered if it is .reg.
> >Confused? Then the system does not work, they are stealing domains off
> >people under false pretences.
>
> A complete non-sequitur.
Sorry you are wrong. I would accuse them to their face. It is theft because
it does not uniquely identify the company taking action. If you took this
line it should legally go to the company whom trademarked the name
first. Not the thieving company trying to bully the domain off the owner. A
case of *law prevailing over justice*. Or would you prefer a prolonged legal
battle of all the 100's world wide trademark owners of domino. The winners
most likely the ones that can afford the most exclusive (expensive)
attourneys ;-)
> You cut out the relevant part of what I said. I said you were entitled
> to campaign about the tactic of opening negotiations with a threatening
> letter. That's a widespread practice, not specific to trade marks or
> domain names.
It seems to me very relevant. Your house is built on land someone 'thinks'
belongs to them. He says to you "Get out of my house". What would you say to
him?
> Quite separately from your disapproval of such tactics, you need to sort
> out in your mind what you believe is wrong with the way trade mark law
> overlaps with domain names. I think you find it impossible to do that,
> because you wrongly treat all cases as being the same (and as being part
> of some mysterious conspiracy).
Any right minded person would deplore such tactics. It overlaps full stop.
All cases are different, but the overall effect is exactly the same -
businesses are trying and succeding in getting domains off owners. As for
the conspiracy, what excuse do you have for the authorities total
mismanagement of the DNS over the last decade (moreso over recent years)?
Look at all the resources, look at all that expertise and brainpower. It is
the only logical explaination. Could you do a worse job, I've already told
you I couldn't. Like I said, just think about it for five minutes.
> For example, here are some different kinds of cases for you to think
> about. (References to examples of some of them at
> http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. When I mention the courts, I usually
> mean the US courts, because that's where most cases have been heard.)
>
> 1. Do you believe that it is wrong to register someone else's trade
> mark as a domain name, when you have no right to use it, and your
> intention is to try to sell it back to them at a high price? I do, and
> so do the courts. (This is what most people define as cybersquatting.)
I most definately think it is very-very wrong to buy something like
AOLtimewarner.com to blackmail them. With as equal vigour, I most definately
think it is right to buy it to complain about the monopoly they hold. The
other problem comes when you unknowingly buy a TM name. What happens when
you buy dominoe.com to sell and they say it is confusingly similar?
> 2. Do you believe it is wrong to register a domain name which is
> confusingly similar to someone else's trade mark, when you have no right
> to use it, and your intention is to try to sell similar goods in
> competition? I do, and so do the courts. (This is straightforward,
> traditional trade mark infringement or passing off. The legal questions
> would be exactly the same if it was an advert in the traditional media.
> The fact that a domain name is involved is neither here nor there).
It is manifestly wrong to pass your goods as someone elses on purpose.
That's what .reg is for - ***it is impossible for fraud to take place.***
> 3. Do you believe it is wrong to register a domain name which is
> similar to someone else's trade mark, in order to open a parody website?
> I think that's a complicated question, and the courts could find either
> way, depending on the facts of the case. There's a conflict between, on
> one hand, the right of free speech and, on the other hand, the trade
> mark owner's right not to be libelled and not to have the value of his
> trade mark diminished in the minds of the public. And, as in no.2
> above, the legal questions would be the same if the parody was in the
> traditional media. So again the fact that a domain name is involved is
> neither here nor there.
I believe everyone should have the right of free speech, to take the mickey
out of anything - obviously nothing racial. The courts should have nothing
to do with it in any media. If anything is said that is libelous, action
should THEN be taken, NOT before. That is guilty before proven innocent,
which is VERY wrong. You are now not able to register a domain to complain
about a bad product, nor one to satire anything, or one in homage to your
favourite football team. Just try getting that - your teams name.
> 4. Do you believe it is wrong to register generic (non-trademark) words
> and common names as domain names, with a view to resale. I don't, and
> neither do the courts. See for example the avery.com case discussed at
> http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. I assume you would approve. (This is
> Steven Levy's broader definition of cybersquatting. Maybe a few people
> agree with him, but they are in a minority.)
Yes I agree, it is not wrong. As for the likes of Steven Levy; I had been
accused of trumped-up charge of fraud while very ill shortly after 2
operations, the second life threatening. The stress of the case almost
killed me. Because I believed the best of people, I allowed a statement to
be steered (saying I told my doctor that I was worried about losing my job)
it was made worse for me. This, would you believe, was used as evidence
against me. I did not believe it either - my faith intruth and justice is
totally gone. They also withheld evidence and I *ONLY* won on my wits. The
next person to falsely accuse me - I am most likely not able to stop myself
becoming violent ;-)
> 5. Do you believe it is wrong for a trade mark owner to try to grab a
> domain name from someone who has registered it for legitimate, innocent
> use, not intending to use it in a way which is detrimental to the trade
> mark owner? I do, and so do the courts. Again, I assume you would
> approve. (This is "reverse domain name hijacking").
Yes I agree, as a recognised business this includes reselling the names on.
> This "reverse domain name hijacking" category should have grabbed your
> attention, because that is the category of the bbc.org, etoy.com and
> veronica.org cases. (As far as I can tell from the relatively few facts
> available to me.) I'll emphasise what I've just said in case you
> didn't get it. The courts have regularly held *against* the trade mark
> owner and *in favour* of the domain name owner in such cases.
> References again at http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht. Doesn't quite fit
> in with your conspiracy theory, does it?
Most domains are given up because the owners have been frightened off. See
below for reasons for others winning.
> So what went wrong in the the bbc.org, veronica.org and etoy.com cases?
>
> Well, nothing has gone wrong yet in the bbc.org case. I've told you my
> opinion, that if it did go to court, the small computer club would
> likely win. And I've speculated on various ways the case might develop,
> all of them scenarios which would favour the computer club. The only
> issue so far is the tactic of opening negotiations with a threatening
> letter. But that's not a fault in the law which applies to trade marks
> and domain names.
See "Get out of my house" above.
> (Another issue which might come up later in the bbc.org case is that
> litigation is expensive, and the computer club might not be able to
> afford it. But again, that's a general problem, not one that's specific
> to trade marks and domain names. The answer is to develop dispute
> settlement procedures which are cheaper, and that is indeed happening.)
People in UK getting a letter from the BBC telling to give up their domain
would have to sell house to afford justice.
> How about veronica.org? Well, Veronica is still online, at
> www.veronica.cc. If Archie had a good case against her, which they
> don't seem to have, then they could complain about this just as strongly
> as they could about veronica.org. But as far as I have been able to
> ascertain, Archie have dropped the case, and it has never been to court.
>
> I suspect (but this is just a guess) that Veronica has been one of the
> victims of Network Solutions' discredited dispute policy. I've already
> said several times in this thread that they were wrong to suspend
> people's domain names in circumstances like this. And lots of people
> agree with me. So much so that the policy has now been abandoned in
> favour of a new, independently operated one. (Note, incidentally, that
> Network Solutions doesn't operate the .cc domain, so Veronica's site
> seems to have remained untouched since it moved there.)
Veronica.cc is only there because Archie comics are now afraid of the
*surrounding publicity* attacking a little girl again.
etoy.com had 'prior use' of the name - eToys.com should have been the site
closed down. It should be obvious, even non experts like the judge, this is
a case of bullying. Being a famous art group in Europe it only won with
unbelievably massive support and the surrounding publicity
> I invite you to do some research on the other cases which feature on
> your website. Find out which of the above categories they fall into (or
> maybe some are different again from those above). Then decide if
> something really did go wrong, and try to find out why. Only then will
> you have the material to decide if there really is a conspiracy, or
> whether the problem was something more general and not related to domain
> name issues.
Thank you for your invite, but I don't think there will be time before it is
too late.
Also thank you very much for your time on my posting. I hope you can see
this is very important for free speech.
Regards,
Garry
Tim Jackson
>Hello Tim
>
>> You oversimplify. Trade mark law says the consumer should not be
>> confused by the use of a confusingly similar mark ***on similar goods
or
>> services***. If the goods or services are different, there is no
trade
>> mark problem.
>
>How do you justify the fact you can have 2 or even very many trademarks
>***EXACTLY THE SAME*** in different countries selling ***SIMILAR GOODS
OR
>SERVICES*** over the Internet?
This happens occasionally, but it is quite rare. And it's only the same
problem as if one company starts to export to the other's territory,
without using the Internet. You can't design the DNS around a problem
that only rarely happens.
Much more common is that two companies use similar trade marks for
*different* goods or services. When that happens, they are not
infringing each other's trade mark rights. And, under the current
domain name system, the first to register gets the domain name, and is
still not infringing the other's rights.
You are right in one way. There is a problem, in that there are simply
not enough domain names to go round. But that's a problem with the
domain name system itself. It's *not* a problem caused by the way trade
mark law operates with respect to domain names. For example, earlier in
this thread, Duncan bemoaned that he could not get 'skate.com' for his
skating site. Same problem, but nothing to do with trade marks.
The obvious solution is to provide more top level domains. That is
already about to happen ('.shop' etc).
But since the problem is *not* about how trade marks operate, there is
no need for one of these new TLDs to be a '.reg' ghetto, into which you
forcibly shovel all these trade marks which you don't like. Especially
not a complicated system like the one you propose. And you haven't
thought through the fact that nearly all commercial sites use a trade
mark of one sort or another (many not registered) -- so you would render
the '.com' domain unusable by the commercial sites for which it was
intended.
I am snipping much of the rest of your post, but will summarise where I
believe you are going wrong. As far as I am concerned, I then see no
point prolonging this discussion further. And, by the way, there was no
need to email me at home -- newsgroups are the right place for this sort
of discussion (though we have probably wandered a little off-topic for
f.h.w).
You are clearly indignant about bully boy tactics, and I have already
said that you are entitled to campaign about it. But it is a general
problem, not confined to trade marks or to domain names (see your
example about "get out of my house"). You will not solve it by devising
an impossibly complex DNS system.
You have largely agreed with me about my 5 different categories of
domain name disputes. But that means that you also largely agree with
the way trade mark law addresses these disputes today, without the need
for your '.reg' system.
We are agreed that there remain problems. To solve those problems, you
need to understand what caused them, and then address the cause. Your
'.reg' system does not do this.
Example: going to court is too expensive for individuals and small
organisations. Solution: devise cheaper dispute resolution mechanisms,
which apply the law as it already stands. That is already happening.
Example: Network Solutions wrongly understood the law, and unfairly
suspended lots of domain names. Solution: take disputes out of the
hands of Network Solutions and give them to someone who will (hopefully)
do better. That is already happening.
Example: the etoy.com case looks to have been wrongly decided (i.e. the
judge did not follow the law in his preliminary decision). If your
system came into effect, eToys (the toy shop) would be forced to use
etoys.reg (or etoys.toys-and-games.reg.us, or whatever). The Zurich
artists would still be at etoy.com. Small boys could still accidentally
type "etoy.com" and their parents could still be offended when they see
language like "download the f***ing plugin". So the toy company could
still want to take legal action, and use bullying tactics. And the
judge could still get the law wrong.
[snip]
>Why else bring in a cybersquatting law, with untold number of TM names
and
>sound-alikes?
As far as I know, the new US cybersquatting law only applies to cases in
my category 1. You have agreed that people in that category are doing
wrong.
Your post mentions another category, that of people who want to set up a
website complaining about a given company. I've not checked whether the
new law affects them, but I would be surprised if it did. I don't think
the previous law prevents this either (provided they don't libel the
company concerned, and as long as it is clear that it is an unofficial
site). True, the company concerned could try legal action and bully-boy
tactics to get rid of them. But they could still do that under your
'.reg' system.
[snip]
>> In these circumstances, a visit to the website will easily tell the
>> consumer which of the Domino companies it is. If it's not the one he
>> wanted, there is no legal problem.
>
>Apologies, I did not explain myself well (one of my failings), my site
has
>now been ammended to explain a bit better. I hope you don't mind, but
have
>used your opening line above and will credit you with quote if you so
wish.
I don't mind you using my words. But I don't want my name associated
with your woolly thinking and wild conspiracy theories, so kindly do
*not* credit me.
>> >Confused? Then the system does not work, they are stealing domains
off
>> >people under false pretences.
>>
>> A complete non-sequitur.
>
>Sorry you are wrong. [snip]
Please look up "non-sequitur" in a good dictionary. It means that your
conclusion did not follow from your previous argument. I wasn't saying
that the conclusion was either right or wrong.
Tim Jackson
[snip]
Against my better judgement, here are some more comments. But this is
definitely the last you will hear from me.
>> How about veronica.org? Well, Veronica is still online, at
>> www.veronica.cc.
[snip]
>Veronica.cc is only there because Archie comics are now afraid of the
>*surrounding publicity* attacking a little girl again.
And because they realise that the law is on Veronica's side, and that
NSI's flawed dispute policy can't help them on a .cc domain (especially
since NSI has now dropped it).
[snip]
>etoy.com had 'prior use' of the name - eToys.com should have been the
site
>closed down.
No, both sites should have been allowed to continue. Neither is
infringing the other's trade mark rights, so prior use is irrelevant.
>> I invite you to do some research on the other cases which feature on
>> your website. Find out which of the above categories they fall into
(or
>> maybe some are different again from those above). Then decide if
>> something really did go wrong, and try to find out why. Only then
will
>> you have the material to decide if there really is a conspiracy, or
>> whether the problem was something more general and not related to
domain
>> name issues.
>
>Thank you for your invite, but I don't think there will be time before
it is
>too late.
Horse feathers. What you mean is that you can't be bothered, because
you are not interested in discovering facts which might disturb your
wild theories.
I didn't know about the etoy.com, bbc.org and veronica.org cases until
you drew them to my attention. I researched them during the course of
our discussions in this thread -- and the world hasn't ended yet.