Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, andsystemintegrity

[steinle@smartvia.de]

To know that giving trademarks superior rights into a domain name is bad
idea you only have to read following MDRP decision.

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/114371.htm
http://sex.shop.steinle.biz (with links to evidences)
http://www.steinle.law.pro (for PacifcRoot users with links to evidences)

Not anyone is that stupid to tell the public that he is only registering a
trademark to grab the corresponding domain name. And you can't find details
about anyones size of business (proxy business to legitimate trademark
application) online.
If I would not have found this information I most likely would have lost my
domain name.

You may also check the STOP case regarding sex.biz to know that giving
trademarks superior rights into a domain name is bad idea.

Regards,
Simon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>;
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>; "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
andsystemintegrity


> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I'm not focused at all on "short catchy" names, Michael, UNLESS they are
trademarked...
>
>   Well this is good to hear.  I can only suspect or surmise that this
would also
> include that "Short Catchy" name, AT&T or ATT as well?  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > maybe that helps?
>
>   Not really.  Nice spin though...  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > Cc: Karl Auerbach; George Kirikos; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
> > andsystemintegrity
> >
> > I note that you are changing the subject rather than responding.  Why is
> > that?  Is it because I'm right?  You may know my views on things, but I
> > certainly don't know how you can make the first and third sentences of
> > the post I responded to both seem accurate at the same time.  I think
they
> > are contradictory.
> >
> > But, since you ask about these new things....
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, I know your views, but I've never heard your views on how the
> > > rights of the individual might be put at risk when they unknowingly
> > > infringe... and therefore can't use a name because they blundered into
> > > a territory where someone has rights..
> >
> > I don't understand the hypo.  If the individual use is non-commercial,
the
> > indivdual is not an infringer, so there is no issue: their use is legal.
> > Those are the interests, oft trampeled on, that I care most about.
> >
> > If the use is commercial, the use is not infringing unless the name is
> > very famous (subject to correction in the pending Victoria's Secret
case)
> > or the use is in the same line of goods in the relevant
> > jurisdiction/terriotry. In neither of those cases am I overyly
sympathetic
> > to the poor small business person who should have done a trademark
search.
> > Those are the rules of the game.  I am concerned about claims that many
> > marks should be seen as famous enought to command federal dilution
> > protection -- that is a trap for the unwary.
> >
> > >
> > > .... the purpose of putting up a site is USUALLY to communicate with
> > > the public.  what advantage is it to the user when they register a
> > > name which someone disputes and they are tied up in a UDRP or a court
> > > action...
> >
> > If their use is legal, then other people shouldn't bring frivolous
cases;
> > if they do they should pay.  I support requiring a bond for UDRP
> > complainants to be lost if the case is deemed to be frivolous.
> >
> > >
> > > .... MOST users want to move quickly to getting a name, getting a web
> > > site, and doing "business/communications"... and getting delayed is a
> > > problem to them.
> >
> > The implicit suggestion that people should thererfore cede all short
> > catchy names (all of which are trademarked for SOMETHING) to the
> > commercial sector is to me quite revolting as an attack on our common
> > language.
> >
> > >
> > > I know, I know,.... as an academic, you want to and need to also
> > > protect all other possible avenues/perspectives, etc.
> >
> > Let's consider the fate of the English language.  Just about every noun
> > and adjective is trademarked for something.  I think I have a right to
> > those words too.
> >
> > >
> > > but consider the "average" user... wanting to merely get to work, so
> > > to speak... I've never heard you on that topic... only on the
> > > adversarial side of the equation.
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure what you mean.  if you mean that 'average' users
> > should be counseled to avoid all the nice catchy names because someone,
> > somewhere, has a trademark on it for something, we don't live on the
same
> > mental, legal or political planet.  But perhaps you meant something
else?
> >
> > >
> > > It's interesting, but perhaps someone else might speak on the aspect
> > > of those who want to avoid conflicts and merely know that they can
> > > register a name, use it, and not have to fight over it...
> >
> > Nope, that's what you mean.  No thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > Probably depends on the agenda of the registrant, of course.  :0)
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it depends more on the rapacity of the trademark bar.
> >
> > > I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate conflicts. That is why we
> > > supported the UDRP. It might not be prefect, but it offered a lower
> > > cost solution for the disputed names for individuals and small
> > > organizations/entities, not just corporations.
> >
> > The UDRP has enormous built-in problems, including the intellectual
> > dishonesty of a *small but vocal* fraction of the arbitrator pool, the
> > unwillingness of the providers to accept a balanced panel of arbitrators
> > (WIPO, for example, won't have me as an arbitrator), and many many
> > procedural flaws discussed at some length in
> > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > > [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:40 PM
> > > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > > Cc: Karl Auerbach; George Kirikos; ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
> > > andsystemintegrity
> > >
> > >
> > > Your first and third sentences below contradict each other.  I believe
the
> > > first is correct and the third is not: ICANN does not "rely on
existing
> > > trademark law".  Instead, it gives TM holders considerable extra-legal
> > > protection -- more than the law requires, e.g. in the 'landrush'
rules.
> > >
> > > In adopting plans "developed outside of ICANN" ICANN consciously
> > > discriminates against everyone without a trademark for the benefit of
> > > those who lobbied for those advantages. There is a good case to be
made
> > > that this lobbying of a private corporation (ICANN) by private firms
to,
> > > in effect, rig the market is an anti-trust violation, and that the
firms
> > > who lobbied ICANN for it are guilty of a combination in restraint of
> > > trade.
> > >
> > > Firms who employ persons engaged in such lobbying may wish to consult
> > > counsel, and may wish to reconsider the wisdom of using ICANN to
secure
> > > market advantages. Cf.
> > > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf
> > >
> > > A revised version of the article will be published in the Illinois Law
> > > Review early in 2003.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > >
> > > > Karl, In this post, you are misinterpreting ICANN's ADOPTION of
> > > > trademark protection developed OUTSIDE of ICANN, WITH ICANN
DEVELOPING
> > > > NEW IP LAWS. I am not a lawyer, but I was there through all of this
> > > > debate, and played a rather visible and central role in developing
the
> > > > concept. ICANN relies on existing trademark law.
> > > >
> > > > I am disappointed in this attribution. It's "interesting" but
> > > > flawed... and not like you.
> > > >
> > > > Marilyn
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:03 PM
> > > > To: George Kirikos
> > > > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails,
and
> > > > systemintegrity
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, George Kirikos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The domain industry needs to have some stronger and explicit ICANN
> > > > > policies (and not just "registry policies that do not disagree
with
> > > > > ICANN policies")...
> > > > ...
> > > > > It shouldn't have to be "caveat emptor", etc....we need stronger
> > > > > protections, like real estate.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN is not a legislature, neither is it a sheriff nor is it a
judge and
> > > > jury.
> > > >
> > > > The efforts of the trademark industry to turn ICANN into all of
those have
> > > > resulted in many of ICANN's problems.
> > > >
> > > > We should be shrinking ICANN's role, rather than increasing it.
> > > >
> > > > If you look for the protection of rights and if you feel that you
have an
> > > > unequal bargaining power to enter into contracts that protect your
> > > > interests, then the place to go is a legislature, not ICANN.
> > > >
> > > >             --karl--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's warm here.<--
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html