After reviewing my post, I must admit, that this thread was ICANN decisions, not NS/the Courts. Of course ICANN was involved in the legislation, so the content of my previous email is at least partially valid. I could bring up that I applied for the use of ".BIZ" in 1995 and that somehow all these other registrars now have the rights to it, despite the fact they applied for that right several years later. Alas, that's a different topic for another day. Cheers all. -Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Doane, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:19 AM To: 'Scott Gifford' Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: An example of reverse-hijack (was: new.net: yet another dns names pace overlay play) Scott, I registered "aol.org" in 1995. It stood for "Andy On-Line" (my name). I used it for almost five years without any problems from America Online, mainly for email and to ftp back into my home network, etc. I did not have a website up. America Online sued and won a judgment without even my being present. They stated that it violated their trademark of "AOL", as they had used it first in commerce. They used the fact that I had no web site at www.aol.org to justify this claim, ignoring the fact that their was an MX record and some other A records. A few "interesting facts": 1. In 1995, even if America On-Line wanted to registered .org they couldn't. Back then the rules were followed, and .org was for "private organizations and individuals". I registered it as an individual for non-commerce use. So their argument that they used it in commerce first is moot - as a .org domain you weren't supposed to. 2. America Online just recently acquired the right to protect "AOL" from the courts. Traditionally speaking, initials cannot be trademarked. If a company reaches "household word" status then they can get protection. IBM and GM would be examples. In 1995 when I registered aol.org, America Online did NOT have this protection. 3. Network solutions suspended the domain without warning by request of America On-Line. My phone calls to network solutions resulted in "call this person", which turned out to be America On-Line's attorneys. NS did this before America Online had received a judgment from the court. 4. Network Solutions and America Online claim they tried to reach me. They didn't. The address on WHOIS was wrong, however the email addresses and phone numbers were valid. Very convenient for them. However, the automatically generated renewal notice that I needed to pay my $35/year fee from NS made it to me. Funny, eh? 5. I hired an attorney to fight it, not because I wanted cash out on America Online (in fact, I didn't ask for this - I just wanted my personal domain back that I had been using for almost 5 years without issue). The net result was it would have cost me a mint to fight it against a multi-billion dollar company with endless resources. I caved and just let them have it. To date, they have not used it. They blackholed the domain. Someone explain the point in that. Obviously they felt people could confuse "aol.com" and "aol.org". So much so that they pointed www.aol.org to www.aol.com? No. So much that they put in MX records so email accidentally sent to joeuser@aol.org got delivered or at least a response back to the person who sent the email that they have the email address wrong? No. Big business wins against the individual by manipulating our government to draft legislation in their favor and then using it after the fact. There's your example. -Andrew NOT andy@aol.org -----Original Message----- From: Scott Gifford [mailto:sgifford@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:16 AM To: William Allen Simpson Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> writes:

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

...

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.

Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently reverse-hijack domains

Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.

Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?

Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by "reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is "walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site, and ICANN somehow agreed. I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up. -----ScottG.