Law

Law / Recently Commented

Content Blocking at the DNS Level in Germany

For those who follow the issue of blocking illegal content from the Internet, there is an interesting development in relation to this issue here in Germany, and I will tell you a little about it. One way to make it difficult to access illegal content is to block it directly in the DNS. But what is DNS for? Basically, it serves to translate the domain name into the IP of the server that is hosting the content. By blocking directly at the DNS level, a query to a domain will no longer bring the server's IP number, and with that, the user no longer accesses that content. more

Searching for the Meaning of “Registers” in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

Where outcomes depend on a word’s meaning, the first task is to define it. “Registers” which is one of the keywords in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), is still in the process of definition. Its statutory context provides that a domain name registrant is liable to the owner of a mark if “it has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark … and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name [corresponding to a mark] that … is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name [and] is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. more

What Due Diligence Satisfies Domain Name Registrant’s Representations (UDRP)?

Not infrequently mark owners in disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) claim that respondents should have been aware that the domain names they registered corresponded to their marks; and from this, urge panelists to draw the inference that the registrations were designed to take advantage of their goodwill and reputation. To test this premise, we need to take a step back for a quick look at UDRP provisions. All it takes to acquire a domain name is to sign a registrar’s registration agreement. more

Offering Price as Evidence of Bad Faith Domain Name Registration: A False (UDRP) Factor

I have pointed out in earlier posts that some panelists disapprove of the business of speculating in domain names. There have been a succession of decisions expressing this view beginning with <crew.com> discussed below. Forfeiture has been justified with a mixture of theories. If the offering price is allegedly "excessive" or the domain name is passively held, or the respondent has renewed its registration after the mark is first used in commerce, the panelists find respondents have engaged in unlawful conduct and must forfeit their domain names. more