FreeCreditReport Wins Over 1,000 Domain Names In Dispute Process

from the trademark-control dept

It's quite common for various trademark holders to go through the UDRP domain dispute process to get back domains held by cybersquatters. Still, it's quite impressive to hear that FreeCreditReport.com was able to get 1,017 separate domain names in a single dispute (found via Slashdot) apparently by using some sort of software that identified all the domains. The company that held the domain names argued, in part, that the term "free credit report" should be seen as generic, not a specific trademark, but the arbitration board simply said that since the USPTO had granted FreeCreditReport.com with a trademark, that the trademark was solid -- and thus most domain names that included those words could be turned over.

This does raise some questions however -- since we've seen plenty of other cases where domains that included trademarked terms, but which would not be confusing to users (such as "trademarknamesucks.com"), have been allowed to be used by the original registrant, rather than handed over to the trademark holder. It's unclear, in this case, if some of those domains were like that -- or if they were all pure squatter domains. Still, it's quite an impressive haul by FCR.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Rules That Using Domain Registration Privacy Services Represents 'Material Falsification'

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Lots of people use private registration services for domain names, that lets them register a domain name while keeping their own identities private. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so: they don't want spam or they want to keep the identity of the site owners anonymous. However, in a recent spam lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals has said that using such a service is "material falsification" of information:

[P]rivate registration is a service that allows registration of a domain name in a manner that conceals the actual registrant's identity from the public absent a subpoena. We fail to perceive any vagueness on this point. Based on the plain meaning of the relevant terms discussed above, private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant's identity would constitute "material falsification." Defendants assert that many innocent people who privately register without the requisite intent may be subject to investigation for violation of § 1037 until their intent can be determined, allowing for abuse by enforcement authorities. This may be so, but it does not make the statute unconstitutionally vague.

While CAN SPAM requires a combination of both material falsification and intent to send spam, it does open up some questions about potential legal problems for anyone who uses such a private registration service in a variety of lawsuits (if those lawsuits are in the Ninth Circuit, of course). The court does seem to admit that this could cause problems, but the job of the court isn't to stop those problems, just to interpret the law.

Separately, in the same lawsuit, the court ruled that the appropriate "community" for judging obscenity standards in email is the "national community" rather than the local community. I have enough problems with the whole "community standards" method of judging "obscenity" in the first place (well, I have trouble with "obscenity" laws entirely), but if you have to have them, it does seem that a national standard makes more sense than a local standard when it comes to email that could go to anyone in any community. As Thomas O'Toole notes in his writeup, the ruling is a bit of a mess, and should keep First Amendment lawyers busy (though, the same is true of any obscenity laws...).

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Says Kentucky Has No Right To Seize Gambling Domain Name

from the not-that-it-cares dept

We've covered the bizarre legal battle in Kentucky, where the governor tried to have a long list of gambling-related domain names (none of which had anything to do with the state of Kentucky) declared "illegal gambling devices" so that the state could seize the domain names. The governor has been pretty open that this has nothing to do with any moral issue over online gambling, but is a blatant attempt to help protect local gambling establishments in the state. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that a state governor could claim the right to seize domain names that are not based in Kentucky at all, and after a lower court (that didn't seem to understand the issue) sided with the governor, an appeal court overturned that ruling. Rather than recognize how silly this campaign is, the case is going to the state Supreme Court.

But, apparently the lawsuits aren't just happening in Kentucky. Michael Scott points us to the news that one of the companies targeted by Kentucky brought a lawsuit both against Kentucky and its own registrar in the UK to get a ruling that it is not subject to the whims of Kentucky politicians. The state of Kentucky ignored the proceedings, which resulted in the court agreeing that Kentucky has no right to seize the domain name. Of course, the state of Kentucky probably couldn't care much less about what a court in England thinks (which explains why it didn't even bother to respond), so the victory may be somewhat meaningless. However, at the very least, if Kentucky somehow wins its case in the US, perhaps the registrars in the UK can point to this ruling to refuse handing over the domain names.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Did One NBA Player Get 800 Domain Names From A Cybersquatter?

from the huh?.com dept

Here's an odd one. Apparently Toronto Raptors forward Chris Bosh was given control over 800 domain names related to NBA basketball players that had been cybersquatted. I'm not sure what it is with professional basketball players and domain name speculation -- as this is the second such story involving that combination -- but what struck me as odd about this is why Bosh was given all the domain names. Bosh had sued over the registration and use of chrisbosh.com -- so you could understand a ruling that gave him control over that domain name. But why give him the other 799 domain names involving other players as well? Bosh has said he'll hand over the rights to the other players for free, but it still doesn't make sense why he got control over them in the first place.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kentucky's Attempt To Seize Gambling Domain Names Goes To State Supreme Court

from the waste-of-kentucky-taxpayer-dollars dept

A year ago, we were surprised to hear that Kentucky's governor was trying to seize the domain names of a long list of over 100 sites that had something to do with gambling. The governor was basing this on a Kentucky law that let the government seize "devices" used for gambling, even though none of the sites in question were based in Kentucky. The governor -- who many say did this to protect local Kentucky gambling operations -- compared these website to "a virtual home invasion." While a judge originally was going to allow the seizure, the state appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that it was clear that a domain name is not a gambling device.

Rather than back down, the governor pushed ahead and is using taxpayer money to appeal the ruling. Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court is getting set to hear the case. It's difficult to see how the governor has much of a leg to stand on here. He's trying to seize the domain names of businesses operated entirely outside the state. Allowing such a seizure of domain names would set a horrendous precedent and create all sorts of problems. Hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court sees this, and Governor Steven Beshear realizes it's best to give up this dangerous crusade.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Swedish Regulators Say The Word 'bank' Not Allowed In Any Domain Names... Except If You're A Bank

from the no-bankrate.se? dept

It's quite common for regulators around the world to insist that no company can call itself a "bank" unless it's an official, regulated bank. In fact, that's often why you see companies (including holding companies of real banks) that use the word "banc" instead of "bank." It's to get around such regulations. However, it looks like regulators in Sweden have gone a step further, telling the Swedish domain registrar, that it can't even allow any domain name to be sold with "bank" in it, unless it's sold to an official bank (found via Michael Scott). Of course, the whole thing seems ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a site might want to use the word "bank" in a domain name without being a bank themselves. A domain could be a site about banks, a service site like Bankrate or simply contain a surname like Banks -- which shouldn't confuse too many folks.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Would Selling Equity In A Domain Name Deserve A Patent?

from the isn't-selling-equity-selling-equity? dept

Brad Feld, one of the increasing number of VCs who's grown skeptical of the value of patents (software patents in particular) alerts us that domain registrar GoDaddy has apparently applied for a patent on selling shares of equity in a domain name. You can see the application itself, which only has six claims and seems pretty straightforward. It's only an application, so there's still a decent chance this gets rejected -- but the very fact that anyone even thought it was worth applying for such a patent is quite telling. It's difficult to see what is new or unique about what's in the patent, other than it applies the standard process of selling equity in anything to a domain name.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Appeals Court Brings Back Lawsuit Over Possible Antitrust Violations Over .com Registry

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

For a long time, there have been accusations of questionable sweetheart deals by ICANN and whoever got to manage certain top level domains -- with no controversy bigger than the question of why VeriSign got to retain the .com and .net registries, and raise prices on it, without any opportunity for other providers to bid on the business (for the .com registry at least -- there was bidding on .net). There were also complaints about a secondary market for "used domains" that VeriSign was setting up. A non-profit group had sued VeriSign, saying that these were antitrust violations, but the district court had thrown out the case, saying that the group, called the Coalition for ICANN Transparency, failed to properly state its case (despite having an opportunity to amend the original filing). However, an appeals court has reversed the lower court, and will allow the lawsuit to proceed, which could mean problems for VeriSign (and potentially cheaper domain name registrations).

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iPod Designer Jonathan Ive Too Private To Deserve JonathanIve.com

from the gotta-be-more-public dept

The domain name dispute process has always been a bit of a crapshoot, as it often depends on who hears the case, but it's still a bit strange to find out that famed Apple designer Jonathan Ive was told he does not have a right to a variety of domain names based on his name, including jonathan-ive.com, jonathanive.com, jony-ive.com and jonyive.com because (1) he had not trademarked his name and (2) because he's a rather "private" individual:

"[Ive and Apple] do not promote [his] name as a brand or trade mark, and therefore do not use it in trade or commerce. [Ive's] work for which he is most famous is publicly recognised and primarily attributable to Apple Inc. rather than [him]," said the ruling. "Despite having the opportunity to pursue individual endeavours outside his employment, which under certain circumstances might be branded under his personal name, [Ive] has made a conscious decision not to do so. In fact, [he] has actively sought to keep his personal name out of trade and commerce."

While I'm not necessarily a fan of simply handing over domain names to folks when others beat them to the registration, it does seem odd that the main criteria that is being used is how well known the name is in commercial settings.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Of Appeals Overturns Kentucky Gambling Domain Seizure

from the good-ruling dept

Back in September, the state of Kentucky tried to seize over 100 domain names, claiming they violated a local state law against "gambling devices." None of the domains were run or hosted in the state of Kentucky, which made this quite a stretch in legal terms. While many of the domain names were for gambling websites, some were merely parked domains. The politicians who ordered the seizure were quite open that this was an attempt to "protect" local gambling interests -- but it seems like an incredible legal reach to claim that because of local protectionist laws, the state somehow has the right to seize domain names from around the world. The domain owners complained, but a local Kentucky state court ruled in favor of the government. However, an appeals court quickly told the state to hold off seizing the domains until it could review the case.

That court has now overturned the lower court ruling saying that a domain name is clearly not a gambling device, and is not covered by the law. However, this does potentially leave the door open for Kentucky politicians to change the law to include domain names... at which point we'll need to go through this whole silly legal battle all over again.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kentucky Appeals Court Tells Kentucky To Hold Off Seizing Domains

from the wait-just-a-second... dept

While a lower court in Kentucky had agreed to allow the state to seize 141 domain names as being "illegal gambling devices" despite having nothing to do with the state of Kentucky, other than being available on internet connections there (and everywhere else), an appeals court has now issued an injunction to stop the state from seizing the domains until the appeal can be heard. While we still have to wait for the full appeal, at least damage won't be done in the interim.

There's one other interesting note in the article, which is that Kentucky's Attorney General appears to be trying to distance himself from the case. Even though most state actions are normally taken by the AGs office, in this case, the lawsuit was filed by the state's Secretary of Justice and Public Safety (there's some question if it's legal for this person to bring the suit). Either way, the AG's name was on the case, but he's now specifically asked to have his name removed from the case. That seems like quite a statement. When even the Attorney General of the state wants nothing to do with the lawsuit, perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF, ACLU Ask Court To Strike Down Kentucky's Domain Name Seizure

from the good-for-them dept

You may recall that a judge recently allowed Kentucky's governor to seize a bunch of domain names that were related to gambling -- even if neither the owners nor the servers were based in Kentucky -- setting a terrible precedent. That's why it's good to see the EFF, the ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) team up yet again to ask an appeals court to overturn this decision. Hopefully the appeals court recognizes how truly awful the original decision was, and notes how it seems to violate multiple clauses of the Constitution.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Allows Kentucky To Seize Domain Names

from the bad,-bad-news dept

Last month, we wrote about a judge allowing Kentucky's governor to seize 141 domain names that were somehow associated with gambling sites under a bizarre interpretation of Kentucky law. Pretty much everyone involved admits that this is just Kentucky's governor protecting local gambling establishments who supported him in the election. No one is even hiding the fact that this is purely about protecting the governor's political supporters from any sort of competition.

However, what's scary is in how the seizure is incredibly broad and far-reaching. None of the sites are based in Kentucky. Many of the sites are nothing more than holding pages, rather than actual online casinos. And, the law itself interprets these sites as "illegal gambling devices" which seems like a big stretch. There was some pushback, as people explained to the judge what an incredibly bad precedent this ruling would set -- as it would effectively allow any local law to be used to take possession of any website.

Apparently, the judge doesn't care. Late last week, the judge upheld the original ruling, giving one small out to the various sites. If they implement filters that block access to any IP address in Kentucky, they can keep their domain names. That's backwards. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name. This is a bad ruling by any stretch of the imagination, made even more bizarre by the judge's unilateral ruling before a hearing was even held. The whole thing sounds quite questionable, and hopefully will be dumped on appeal.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kentucky's Gambling Domain Name Grab Sets A Terrible Precedent

from the governors-who-want-more-power dept

Last month, we wrote about a bizarre lawsuit in Kentucky, where a judge gave the government the ability to seize the domain names of numerous online gambling sites, even though none of them were based in Kentucky, or even registered via Kentucky-based registrars. The whole thing smelled of corruption, given that the governor is closely tied to offline casino interests, and his campaign apparently included a big promise to bring more offline casinos to Kentucky. This effort seems mostly focused on not just blocking out online competitors, but seizing their domain names. Lots of people are pushing back and explaining how ridiculous the scenario is to the judge, noting, for example, that following similar logic would allow any country to seize any domain name. For example, China could decide that the BBC website violates its laws and demand that the BBC domain name be turned over to the Chinese government. Most folks would recognize that this is ridiculous -- but it's effectively what the Kentucky governor has done.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kentucky Governor Seizes Online Gambling Domain Names

from the can't-have-competition-for-horse-racing dept

It's always fascinating to watch US politicians act as complete hypocrites when it comes to gambling. They talk about moral issues on why they need to stop online gambling, but allow their own personal favorite types of gambling, such as horse races and lottery. Kentucky, of course, is a big horse racing state, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that the state has strict anti-online-gambling laws. These laws are so strict that the state's governor is using them to seize 141 domain names of sites that the state claims are used for illegal gambling. Of course, it appears that many of the domains aren't online gambling sites at all, but parked domains. The state doesn't seem shy about the fact that it's doing this to "protect" the horse racing business, but of course, throws in the moral argument as well:

"Illegal Internet gambling poses a unique threat to our Commonwealth. For individuals - particularly our youth - it is tantamount to a virtual home invasion. For some of our vital and most venerable legitimate enterprises, it undermines their exemplary regulatory compliance and siphons away their constituents."

Home invasion? Really? A parked domain is the equivalent of a home invasion?

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Domainers Lose Big Time In Verizon Cybersquatting Lawsuit

from the poor-domainers dept

Eric Goldman has the details on a lawsuit that should make various typosquatting "domainers" (those who register tons of domain names on typos or other variations of a brand name) a bit nervous. The court came down hard on domaining in general, and domain "tasting" more specifically. The domainer in question tried to get around the law by claiming that by just "tasting" the domain (i.e., holding onto it for the 5 day grace period before you have to pay for it), they weren't running afoul of laws concerning registering someone else's trademarked names.

What's odd, though, and Goldman doesn't seem to understand it either, is that it wasn't just the domainer who got slammed, but the registrar through which the domainer registered the domains. That seems questionable, as the registrar should just be a third party service provider, and protected from any liability from the actions of the user.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If ICANN Can't Even Control Its Own Domain Names...

from the what-hope-do-the-rest-of-us-have dept

ICANN has been something of a joke. Charged with managing top level domain names, the organization has done a lot more to annoy users and force them to keep buying new domain names at high prices than do anything constructive in managing TLDs. And now it turns out that even ICANN can get spoofed. Hoaxers convinced ICANN's own registrar to hand over the controls for two of its main websites: ICANN.com and IANA.com, allowing each to be redirected elsewhere briefly. While ICANN was able to regain control over both domains within 20 minutes, the ease with which both were hijacked suggests that perhaps a more constructive use of ICANN's time, rather than coming up with new TLDs that cost too much money, would be to come up with better ways to prevent such hijackings -- and better ways to deal with such hijackings if you don't happen to be ICANN.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Did The US Gov't Take Down A British Travel Agent's Websites?

from the jurisdictional-questions dept

Over the years, we've seen a ton of jurisdictional questions raised by the internet. After all, since the internet is available just about anywhere, and content on it may break laws in some countries, but not others, how do you handle the jurisdiction question. Some courts have determined that it doesn't matter -- and they'll claim jurisdiction for whatever they want. Others suggest that evidence needs to be shown that the content is directed at and was seen by many people within the jurisdiction. Others have held that it needs to be created by a local resident or hosted on a local server. However, with all that said, it's not clear what jurisdiction the US government seems to be claiming over a bunch of websites created by a British travel agent. The websites all advertise trips to or information about Cuba. The websites were designed for European travelers to plan trips to the island nation. Now, it's well known that US citizens are not allowed to travel to Cuba, but that's not true of people from other countries. So, this guy clearly was not breaking any laws.

No matter, though. Since he had registered the domains for his various websites through eNom, an American company, the US Treasury Department had them pull down his sites and to refuse to release them to another registrar. There's no doubt that if the sites were targeting Americans or was run by an American travel agency, you could understand these actions. But to take down a UK-based website that was aimed at European travelers, offering them perfectly legitimate trips to Cuba, seems to go beyond any reasonable jurisdictional claim.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Network Solutions And ICANN Both Sued For Allowing Domain Front Running

from the as-expected dept

Back in January, it was revealed that Network Solutions was involved in the rather sleazy practice of registering up any domain you searched for through its search engine, and holding onto it for five days -- unless you bought it through them only. Since Network Solutions charges more than most other registrars, but is generally considered more "trustworthy" as a place to search for domain names, this was a pretty big deal. Lots of people search at NetSol and then register elsewhere -- so by holding on to the domains and forcing you to pay NetSol's inflated prices seemed like a scam. In fact, it seemed quite similar to the sleazy practices of questionable registrars, Network Solutions actually tried to claim it was actually to protect against those questionable registrars. ICANN, reprising its usual role as being powerless to do anything useful, promised to look into the matter, and promptly claimed that Network Solutions was doing nothing wrong. Many people feel otherwise, so it's hardly a surprise to find out that both Network Solutions and ICANN have been sued by lawyers attempting to create a class action suit over the activity. Whether or not it deserves a class action lawsuit is a separate discussion, but it's still difficult to understand how NetSol could possibly think this is a good idea or one that would be welcomed by anyone.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Could MySpace.co.uk Have Been 'Abusively' Registered Six Years Before MySpace Existed?

from the time-warp dept

Arbitration rulings over domain name disputes sometimes have hard to understand results. Take, for example, the fact that MySpace has now won the right to the MySpace.co.uk domain. The arbitrator found that the domain name was an "abusive registration," despite the fact that the owner had registered it in 1997, six years before MySpace existed. However, by setting up a parked page and putting ads on it, the arbitrator found that the registration was apparently retroactively abusive. This seems open to rather widespread abuse. If you want to own someone else's domain name, all you have to do is build a bigger company based on that name and then point to their parked page and demand they hand it over?

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..