RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:38 PM

> Do the court's go so far as to distinguish between a domain 
> name as created
> and domain name as published?
> 
> If so, in the circumstances that a new registrant defaults on renewal
> payments for publishing a domain name that has been awarded to it by a
> court, I don't think the Registry/ Registrar can just delete 
> the domain name
> and the registrants creative rights to it in the process.
> 
> I imagine they would have an obligation to keep the option to 
> publish open
> permanently for the registrant who has demonstrated a 
> legitimate right to it
> and none other. The question is, what obligations is the new 
> registrant under to publish the name once it has been awarded, if any?

Entitlement to the IP does not confer an obligation to publish, as near as I
can tell. The legal owner of the name is free to not publish it.

> If none, a seperation of rights to a domain name into creative and
> publishing, seems to introduce a loophole which would allow a 
> disreputable
> person and company to legitimately cybersquat names without 
> actually paying
> anybody for them at all after the initial award had been made.

That is true although, I would stop short of calling it disreputable
practice. One must understand that an IP owner does not just get there by
fiat. We are stipulating the occurance of a court-trial here, not a UDRP
action. UDRP is a civil arbitration proceding, not a court trial. This means
that, their claim is legitimate in the eyes of the law. I think it very
unlikely that this will occur on a general basis, the costs are simply too
high.

-- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:07 PM
> To: jo-uk@rcn.com
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> 
> 
> Anyway, I very much doubt that in the case mentioned there's any
> ambiguity at all about whether payments have to continue to be
> made on the name.  There's no way that the regular T&C were
> bypassed.  Any two name holders can make a transfer any time they
> like, and in so doing they will ascribe to the T&C of the
> registrar and COM domain holder.  The only difference here would
> be that the transfer is forced.
> 
> From: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> > A sad outcome of judicial activism.
> > It seems to me that an ordered transfer can't generally
> interfere
> > with the rights of the registrar.  So a permanent transfer
> would
> > have to be interpreted to mean "as long as the transferee
> > maintains the domain".
> > The registrar in this case would have to delete the domain,
> else
> > could be sued for unfair treatment (deleting other domains when
> > payment is not made).
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:49 PM
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> 
> 
> > I think Eric means what happens if a registrant, having been
> awarded the
> > name permanently, then declines to make any payments. The
> registrars cannot
> > force the domain name holder to pay in perpetuity, but equally,
> cannot
> > resell the name.
> > Joanna
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Miles B. Whitener
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:23 PM
> > To: Eric Dierker; Phil King
> > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> >
> >
> > > The Judge got the property right but those poor registrars.
> > How can they charge
> > > for renewals if the judge orders it permanently transferred?
> >
> > When you transfer a domain, the new domain holder pays renewal
> > charges.
> > Haven't you ever transferred a domain?
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html