[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] Article
Here is a fair use copy of the article that I tried to provide a link to
last week.
Court Curbs Power of ICANN
U.S. judge says courts may second-guess
domain-name arbiter
Victoria Slind-Flor
The National Law Journal
May 18, 2000
In the first ruling of its kind, a federal
judge in Illinois has said that courts are
not bound by the administrative
proceedings of the organization
established to provide management of the
Internet domain-name system.
Weber-Stephen v. Armitage, 00 C 1738.
Armitage Hardware and Building Supply
Inc., a Chicago-based retailer, has been
selling the popular Weber barbecue grills
over the Internet since 1995. The company
sold the merchandise through a Web site
whose name would tip off potential
purchasers that the grills were likely to be
sold in that location: www.webergrills.com.
According to earlier news stories, the site
attracted potential new customers from as
far away as Britain, India and Singapore,
and Web sales quickly grew to nearly 10
percent of the hardware company's
business.
But, eventually, a dispute broke out
between the hardware company and the
grill's manufacturer, Weber-Stephen
Products Co., of Palatine, Ill.
Weber-Stephen filed a
trademark-infringement suit in federal
court in Chicago, charging the hardware
company with using the Weber trademarks
and service marks in a deceptive,
confusing and misleading manner.
NAMING NAMES
Additionally, Weber-Stephen went to the
Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit,
private-sector corporation set up to
oversee Web-name assignments and
resolve domain-name disputes. Under the
organization's Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy, Weber-Stephen
asked ICANN to cancel Armitage's domain
names or to transfer them to Weber. In
response, Armitage asked the federal
court to stay ICANN's administrative
proceedings and declare them nonbinding.
In a ruling on May 3, U.S. District Judge
Marvin E. Aspen determined that the court
is not bound by proceedings of an ICANN
panel. But he indicated uncertainty about
just how much deference the
administrative procedures should be given.
He stayed the federal trademark case
pending the outcome of the ICANN
decision and said that "at this time we
declined to determine the precise standard
by which we would refuse the panel's
decision and what degree of deference (if
any) we would give that decision. Neither
the ICANN Policy nor its governing rules
dictate to the court what weight should be
given to a panel's decision."
The ruling is significant because of the
volume of dispute-resolution proceedings
now before the administrative
organization. According to the ICANN Web
site, on May 9 there were 518 unresolved
cases.