I am at the ICANN meeting in Rome. The big story here is that ICANN is under attack for not sticking to its narrow mission -- technical coordination of the DNS and IP numbering system. People here are referring obliquely to the VeriSign lawsuit as "recent events" (as in "in light of recent events"). This euphemism reminds me of words used to reference the US Civil War ("the late unpleasantness").
In a Press Release issued yesterday, February 26, 2004, it has been announced that Zuccarini (background here) will receive 30 months in prison for violating the Truth in Domain Names Act. At least two of the domain names mentioned in the press release, DINSEYLAND.COM and BOBTHEBIULDER.COM appear to have been registered by third parties and are pointing to pages of links...
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) -- the same organization whose head recently equated intellectual property infringement with terrorism -- has been pressing ICANN to add domain name monopolies on the names of countries, and the names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations, into the Uniform Domain Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Despite the fact that no-one but WIPO seems to want these new exclusions, a working group has nonetheless been convened to study their recommendations.
We Internet users, who either own domain names or have an interest in the domain name system, wish to object to the VeriSign's Site Finder system. We believe that the system: 1) Breaks technical standards, by rewriting the expected error codes to instead point to VeriSign's pay-per-click web directory, and threatens the security and stability of the Internet; 2) Breaks technical standards affecting email services, and other Internet systems...
On September 3, 2003, United States federal law enforcement officers arrested the notorious John Zuccarini accused of allegedly creating misleading domain names to deceive children and direct them to pornographic websites. Zuccarini's arrest is the first to be made under the Truth in Domain Names Act, which took effect earlier this year prohibiting people from creating misleading domain names as a means to deceive children into viewing content that's harmful to minors, or tricking adults into clicking on obscene websites. What follows is a collection of commentaries made by experts in response to this event...
In the final part of this 3-part series article, the issue of UDRP in proving bad-faith domain registrations that are held passively is examined with respect to the trademark's characteristics. The registrant's attitude could in some circumstances also be regarded as evidence of bad faith use of a domain name that is held passively. Panels often infer evidence of bad faith of the registrant from an unsatisfactory response or an absence of response to the complainant or if it is impossible to contact the respondent.
In the second part of this 3-part series article, the issue of UDRP in proving bad-faith domain registrations is examined with respect to the trademark's characteristics. The first part of this article can be found here. In assessing whether there is a passive holding of a domain name, panels look carefully into the trademark's characteristics in question, namely what is the degree of reputation and distinctiveness of the trademark in question.
The purpose of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, known as the UDRP (hereafter the Policy), is to determine disputes relating to the registration or acquisition of domain names in bad faith. Under the Policy, the complainant must establish that (i) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the domain name registrant has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Whilst requirements (i) and (ii), at first glance, do not appear difficult to meet, it is not the same with requirement (iii). In fact, a serious problem arises for the complainant when a registrant has registered domain names in bulk, but has not used them i.e. they have not been resolved to any active website.
In India, whilst the Intellectual property owners continue to face the problems of counterfeiting and infringements of their brand names/trade marks, the emerging trend amongst misusers appears to be adopting famous/well known marks as a part of their trading style/corporate name. Obviously, the intention is to choose a name that is easy to recollect and gives the impression of being associated with a well-known company. More often than not, in order to claim honesty in adoption, the marks are adopted in relation to a different business as that of the IP holder. Also it is common among misusers to slightly twist the name or add a descriptive suffix/prefix to the well-known mark.
How are domain names dealt with in Russia? This article discusses current issues related to the registration and assignment of domain names in ".ru" zone (Russian top level country code domain) and trademark protection on Internet.