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.
On 7 Mar 2001, Scott Gifford wrote:
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.
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be equally successful. John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org 770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave 770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, John A. Tamplin wrote:
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.
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be equally successful.
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those rights are being eroded quickly.)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those rights are being eroded quickly.)
Yes, if I wanted to write an article talking about how much I disliked Walmart I can use their name as long as I am careful about libel/slander. However, I think a web site's domain name is closer to a magazine title or a company name (depending on its use) and thus exceeds that right. IANAL, this is just my opinion. The big problem is that these IP laws were written long before many of these technologies were even thought of and applying current technology to old laws is open to interpretation. It would be nice to clarify them, although recent attempts (ie, DMCA, FCC ruling on HD signals) have added as many problems as they solved. John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org 770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave 770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those rights are being eroded quickly.)
No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had <companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark violations". Charles
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those rights are being eroded quickly.)
No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had <companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark violations".
Which brings me to the interesting borderline case: companyname.sucks.com Can WIPO take away hostname records?:) Pi -- If your telephone company installs a system in the woods with no one around to see them, do they still get it wrong? -- Robert Moir in the Monestary
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Pim van Riezen wrote:
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those rights are being eroded quickly.)
No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had <companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark violations".
Which brings me to the interesting borderline case:
companyname.sucks.com
Can WIPO take away hostname records?:)
SWIPO has been pretty good at taking everything else so far.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Charles Sprickman wrote:
No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had <companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark violations".
Including me. In my case, the company and I came to an amicable resolution; no arbitration, no lawsuit. Others aren't as lucky. I disagree that this type of activity is an infringement, but I'm not a lawyer. -- Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) 216.619.2NET (2638) http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, and cheap beer.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 11:57:26AM -0600, John A. Tamplin wrote:
name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be equally successful.
I think you should check out some of the many domains 2600 magazine has managed to successfully keep. It numbers into the hundreds. Most of them are variations on "companynamesucks.com" and "companynamereallysucks.com", with quite a few "fuckcompany.com" thrown in. My favorite is "verizonshouldspendmoretimefixingtheirnetworkandlessmoneyonlawyers.com".
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be equally successful.
Surely owning a domain is more like naming a book or magazine article than naming a business. After all, businesses are not the only Internet sites. DS
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
Surely owning a domain is more like naming a book or magazine article than naming a business. After all, businesses are not the only Internet sites.
Well, that is up for debate (which is why the laws need to be clarified). Personally, I think the name of a website publishing articles is more like the name of a magazine than the title of an article. Ie, if you have www.companiesihate.com and you have an article under that /walmartsucks.html that you publish, the domain name could not infringe on Walmart's trademark and would not be the subject of any action with NSI/etc (of course you might get sued for slander/libel/etc depending on the content of the article). So under that analogy, if a magazine was started up called "Walmart Sucks" I am pretty sure Walmart would go after them and win. If you disagree with that analogy, then we are each entitled to our opinions until the law is clarified. Reminds me of the latter days of Usenet usefulness when the name of a newsgroup was a statement itself rather than any articles posted under it. John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org 770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave 770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, John A. Tamplin wrote:
So under that analogy, if a magazine was started up called "Walmart Sucks" I am pretty sure Walmart would go after them and win. If you disagree with that analogy, then we are each entitled to our opinions until the law is clarified.
If I believe (meaning I have a deep personal conviction) that WalMart is a giant evil sucking hole that has ruined large swaths of rural america by driving small businesses out of town, why am I not protected by the First Amendment if I choose to publish (paper/web) a magazine whose mission is to publicize the negative impacts on society that WalMart has? Assume this publication is targetted at small businesses and has helpful hints for staying in business and editorial content that portrays WalMart in a negative light. Why can I not then call this publication "WalMart Sucks", or "Beating WalMart"? What could more accurately and fairly describe what one finds inside the site/magazine? It really feels more like an issue of bullying to me. Charles core-1(config)# ip route 209.10.214.20 255.255.255.255 null0 core-1(config)#
Reminds me of the latter days of Usenet usefulness when the name of a newsgroup was a statement itself rather than any articles posted under it.
John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org 770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave 770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
participants (8)
-
Charles Sprickman -
David Schwartz -
John A. Tamplin -
Patrick Greenwell -
Pim van Riezen -
Scott Gifford -
Shawn McMahon -
Steven J. Sobol