It came to our attention that you registered and maintain a website www.gaijin.com (“Infringing Website”) that infringes Gaijin Mark. By maintaining and offering to public your content via the website, i.e., Infringing Website, having the same domain as Gaijin Mark, you create consumer confusion and mistake as to the source, sponsorship and/or affiliation of the Infringing Website and Gaijin, thereby infringing Gaijin Mark.

Dear Mr. Goldstein-Gureff,

Please be advised that my client, Brandon Harris, disputes your trademark-infringement claim in every particular.

That is the most polite way to state how vigorously we dispute your attempt to assert flat ownership of the word “gaijin,” a word so well-established in English that it is an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Currently, I’m advising my client to publicize your demand letter, so that the entire game-consuming public will be made aware of your client’s overreaching trademark assertions. In addition, we will of course continue to make clear that Brandon Harris’s website in no way gives rise to any kind of marketplace confusion of the sort that American trademark law is designed to address.

In the interests of allowing you and your client to gracefully retract your claim, we have chosen to refrain from publicizing your demand until you respond to this message, provided that you respond no later than close-of-business Monday. Since I am currently in DC, Eastern time applies.

–Mike Godwin

P.S. I understand that your clients are possibly Russian nationals. You may wish to explain to them the scope and limitations of the Lanham Act in the United States.

–MG

1. "Honestly, if it was up to me, I would delay the whole release of new gTLDs by at least a year."

2. "... a lot of the foundations that I would be comfortable with, as someone who has built businesses before, are just not yet there."

3. "We have people who took six years to write the [new gTLD Applicant] Guidebook and we're asking engineers and software people and third-party vendors and hundreds of people to get that whole program running in six months."

4. "When the number two at IBM called me, Erich Clementi, after we signed the deal with them to do the [Trademark Clearinghouse] he said 'Are you nuts?'. Literally, quote. He said: 'Fadi you've built these systems for us before. You know it takes three times the amount of time it takes to write the specs to build reliable systems.'"

5. "We're facing a difficult situation, we're working hard as we can, our people are at the edge."

6. "I don't mean to scare you, because I know many of your businesses rely on this, but the right people are now in place, we're building it as fast as we can but I want you to understand that this is tough, and I wish it were different. I wish you would all raise your hands and say: 'You know what? Let's take a break and meet in a year'."

7. "I don't want to delay this program, but under all circumstances my mind would tell me: stop."

Dear *******

We would like to inform you that the Landrush Phase of the new .SX extension of Sint Maarten has now closed and will be available next Thursday, on November 15th, 2012 in the final phase called

General Availability

> From that date, you will be able to register .SX domain names on a first-come-first served basis.

We would like to emphasize the importance of the .SX extension that can be confused with or misspelled from the word

sex

registering your trademark or company names as domain in the extension may thus protect your image and prevent from confusion with the adult industry.

We're obviously thrilled that after 18 months it looks like we will get the domain names back. I think this is a sign that you can stand up for what's right in copyright law and win.

“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”

“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.

“The theft of intellectual property, particularly within the cyber arena, is a growing problem and one that cannot be ignored by the U.S government’s law enforcement community. These thefts cost companies millions of dollars and can even inhibit the development and implementation of new ideas and applications. The FBI, in working with its various corporate and government partners, is not only committed to combating such thefts but is well poised to coordinate with the many jurisdictions that are impacted by such activities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Lamkin.

The reason we are fighting the good fight is to stop people from doing bad things and hold them accountable for their actions. Whether you are enforcing trademark rights or car thefts, this has to be done one person at a time. In 2010 a client asked me what we could take away from the offenders to make them stop. My simple answer was “Their freedom.” Entrepreneurs will always find a way to do business. Bad guys need to be put away to reflect on their actions. Nothing else will stop them. When you take away only the tool, you are training the criminal to improve. I am not in the business of training crooks. Are you?

To businesses, which only need one website address, new domain names are often a tax they must pay to protect their brand. It’s as if someone printed an alternate copy of the White Pages and asked companies to buy a listing before it was sold to someone else.

In this case, a New York City company like Bloomberg would have to buy Bloomberg.nyc or face having to buy it back at a higher price. Other iconic New York City brands will likely watch nervously to see what becomes names like of “gossipgirl.nyc” or “magnoliabakery.nyc”

1. Lowering the standard for when the simplified URS process (seize domains quickly, ask questions later) process can be put in place. Originally, the bar had been set high so that this process could only be used in truly egregious cases where there was no question that the domain was infringing. But the proposal sought to lower the standard such that it's the same as the UDRP standard (effectively stepping in and replacing UDRP).
2. Changing the already agreed upon URS system, such that domains that go through the process aren't just suspended, but transferred to the trademark holder. In other words, rather than just shutting down the domain, this fastpass system would simply turn the domains over to the trademark bullies.
3. Saying that the URS process (which was developed just for these new TLDs) should also be expanded to cover the most important TLD of all: .com. Yes, that's right. That's the goal in all of this. To actually make it much, much easier for trademark bullies to completely shut down and gain control of domains that they don't like others to use, and to do it cheaply, with very little review.

I see this as abuse of the US criminal justice system for the commercial gain of large US corporations. It is clear that the online gaming industry is legal under international law and in the case of these documents is it also clear that the rule of law was not allowed to slow down a rush to try to win the war of public opinion.

These documents were filed with Forbes magazine before they were filed anywhere else and were drafted with the consumption of the media as a primary objective. We will all look at this and discuss the future with our advisors, but it will not stop my many business interests globally that are unrelated to anything in the US....

When I contacted the Secret Service, the agent told me she is busy and she asked for my phone number, and told me they will get back to me within this week. I told them we are a web service with hundreds of thousands of users, so this is a matter of urgency, and we are ready to cooperate fully. I was ready to shutdown any form they request and provide any information we have about the user. Unfortunately, she told me she needs to look at the case which she can do in a few days. I called her many times again to check about the case, but she seems to be getting irritated with me. At this point, we are waiting for them to look into our case.

"We are aware of the incident and we're reviewing it internally to make sure all the proper procedures and protocols were followed."

Many people on the comments assumed the content was posted by us. This can happen to any site that allows public to post content. SOPA may not have passed, but what happened shows that it is already being practiced. All they have to do is to ask GoDaddy to take a site down. We have 2 millions user generated forms. It is not possible for us to manually review all forms. This can happen to any web site that allows user generated content.

1. First and foremost, as mentioned, this is the first time we've heard of a foreign country seizing a .com -- which the US DOJ/DHS appear to claim as their own jurisdiction. While perhaps this was done in concert with US law enforcement, it seems pretty questionable that the US would allow what they insist are "domestic" domains to be seized by foreign countries. Think of the precedent that sets for... say... Iran. The operators of the site appear to have been in the UK, so that may be the reasoning behind this, but it still raises significant jurisdictional questions about just who can seize a .com.
2. Second, the big red warning at the top is insane. Merely downloading music wouldn't be a criminal offense with a possibility of 10 years imprisonment. While I'm not as familiar with the differences between civil and criminal infringement when it comes to UK copyright law, I believe it's not that different than the US, where merely downloading is going to be civil, not criminal. A quick review of UK law suggests that it can only be a criminal issue if it's done at commercial scale, and doesn't seem to apply at all to personal downloads. In fact, the UK explicitly fought the idea of expanding criminal sanctions to file sharing. So, SOCA is basically lying.
3. Next, the splash page claims that the music was "stolen" from artists. While the copies may be infringing, it's doubtful that the music was literally stolen.
4. The scare tactic of displaying your IP address and pretending that this suggests they're coming after any visitor to the site. This is, again, insane. The RIAA tried this years ago when it got the Grokster site and it was just as silly then as it is now. Merely visiting a site is not breaking the law, and splashing your IP address next to a message suggesting visitors are about to be put in jail is insane hyperbole.
5. Further, claiming that SOCA has the ability to "monitor" you is also an exaggeration. While it may be able to monitor certain transactions, it seems to be implying that it's watching your every move.
6. Claiming that "young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged" because of this site is pretty silly. Most young, emerging artists are actively leaking their works to such sites so they can emerge. They know that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy ever was or will be.
7. Saying that downloading music means you have (absolutley) "damaged the future of the music industry" is again insane hyperbole. The music industry has continued to grow pretty consistently over the past decade. It's just one segment -- the direct sales of music -- that has stumbled, and that was the part that rarely pays artists very much anyway.

Additionally, Yonjo Quiroa, 28, of Comstock Park, Mich., was arrested Wednesday by special agents with HSI. He is charged with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright related to his operation of websites that illegally streamed live sporting event telecasts and pay-per-view events over the Internet. Quiroa operated nine of the 16 streaming websites that were seized, and he operated them from his home in Michigan until yesterday's arrest.

The website seizures during Operation Fake Sweep represent the 10th phase of Operation In Our Sites, a sustained law enforcement initiative targeting counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet. The 307 websites are in the process of being seized by law enforcement, and will soon be in the custody of the federal government. Visitors to these websites will then find a seizure banner that notifies them that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities and educates them that willful copyright infringement is a federal crime.

Adelman couldn’t commit to changing its position on the record in Congress when asked about that, but said “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered.

I just got a call from #GoDaddy. The rep said he noticed that I'd transferred my 60+ domains away... and wanted to know if I'd tell them why. I got to tell them that it was because of their #SOPA support, and that I couldn't in good conscience give my money to a tech company that would support legislation like that. I told him I was aware that they had reversed their position, but that their explicit support of it in the first place had cost them my confidence in them, as it is at the best viciously ignorant, and at worst, malicious. The rep was quite sincere in his apology to me, asked if there was anything they could do to win me back. He had a "We support IP protections, and now realize that support of SOPA is too broad" song-and-dance routine that probably came in from a PR memo today. I told him "no thanks", and that was that. I'm impressed by the customer service hustle, but it shows that this little incident really spooked them.

The government seized and shut down two Internet domain names—the 21st century equivalent of printing presses. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) (noting that through use of the Internet, “any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”). Seizure of that sort is a prior restraint on speech. Prior restraints are “‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement’ on our freedoms of speech and press.” United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304, 309 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976) ). They can be justified only by scrupulous attention to procedure and an extraordinary showing on the merits. Neither is present here.

The government seized and shut down Puerto 80 and its users’ means of communication in an ex parte procedure with no notice to Puerto 80 and no adversary hearing of any kind. It held those domain names for more than six months before any court ever considered whether the seizure violated the First Amendment or caused Puerto 80 substantial hardship such that the domain names should be released pending a determination of the merits of the forfeiture case. To date, no court has reached the merits of the government’s case. When the district court did rule, it dismissed the First Amendment concerns in a paragraph, improperly placing the burden on Puerto 80 to show that it suffered substantial hardship from the government’s prior restraint. And the government did all this without ever having had to prove to any court that Puerto 80 (or anyone else) was guilty of copyright infringement. Indeed, to this day the government takes the position that it will never have to justify its seizure by showing that Puerto 80 violated any law. (MJN, Exhibit D at 1.)

The procedure used by the government flies in the face of First Amendment law. Decades of First Amendment jurisprudence establishes that the government is entitled to seize property used for speech only after notice to the property owner and an adversarial hearing that fully vets the merits of the government’s case and concludes that the defendant acted unlawfully. This seizure was conducted with no notice, no hearing of any kind, and was based only on the government’s assertion that it had probable cause to believe that criminal infringement occurred because some of the content linked to by Puerto 80 may be unauthorized. That procedural failure is itself enough to condemn the government’s action as an unlawful prior restraint. And it is compounded by the government’s substantive failure to show anything more than probable cause to believe that criminal copyright infringement had occurred. The First Amendment requires more than probable cause. It requires a final determination on the merits that Puerto 80’s use of the domain names was unlawful. For both reasons, the government’s prior restraint was unlawful and should be lifted.

"The jurisdiction we have over these sites right now really is the use of the domain name registry system in the United States. That's the key."

The only necessary "nexus to the US" is a .com or .net web address for which Verisign acts as the official registry operator, he said.

Ars: So how did these seizures differ from, say, narcotics seizures in which some of the same issues about a non-adversarial hearing apply?

Rep. Lofgren: You're never going to have a free speech issue when it comes to a pile of cocaine.

Ars: The recording industry also objected to the First Amendment concerns you raised, saying that the First Amendment is "not a shield for illegal behavior."

Rep. Lofgren: They completely missed the point, and I would think intentionally so. This is prior restraint of speech, and you can't do that in America.

Online theft, particularly through websites dedicated to infringing our rights, is a terribly important issue for those who invest in the artists and music that entertains the world. Online theft has cost our industry, the broader entertainment community, and our economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the reference in your comments at the hearing to a New York Times article regarding a site implicated in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) domain name seizures that claimed it received some music directly from a record label. The implication of the article was that any action against this or similar sites would be inappropriate given its distribution of some potentially authorized content.

The First Amendment serves as a safeguard for free expression but not as a shield for illegal behavior. If, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "neither the press nor booksellers may claim special protection from governmental regulations of general applicability simply by virtue of their First Amendment protected activities," then neither should sites dedicated to theft just because they also host online conversation. The fact is that these sites are welcome to limit their offerings to only authorized material (including any music provided by a rights holder) and to public discourse. But no one should be allowed to continue to engage in illegal activity while hiding behind a facade of legitimacy

As notable First Amendment scholar, Floyd Abrams, stated last month in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee with reference to such seizures, "Copyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment. Entities 'dedicated to infringing activities' are not engaging in speech that any civilized, let alone freedom-oriented, nation protects. That these infringing activities occur on the Internet makes them not less, but more harmful."

Assuming the site referenced in the New York Times article you cited actually received some authorized copies of legitimate material doesn't excuse the criminal activity of making available thousands and thousands of copies of unauthorized material. In the physical world, if the government seizes a shipment of thousands of boxes of illegal goods, and the distributor of the illegal goods tries to cover itself by including a small portion of lawful goods on top, the seizure would not be improper.

Some have opposed recent seizures based on the claim that "they are ineffective anyway because the sites just pop right back up." Follow-up to the seizures that have occurred thus far indicate the opposite -- recidivism is low.

Finally, claims regarding a lack of due process under U.S. statutory procedure remain unfounded. The sites targeted by the government are reviewed by investigators, U.S. Attorneys, and judges. There is a thorough analysis and prosecutorial discretion is exercised by several parties. There has been no rush to judgment.

And, as you noted at the hearing, an aggrieved party can always challenge a wrongful seizure under due process provisions set in statute – although it is noteworthy that so far none of the hundred sites seized for conducting illegal activity has chosen to do that.