Cybersquatting Disputes Resolved Online?

worth writes "Network Solutions, Inc. has launched a new site to help resolve domain disputes online. They call it the online center for Domain Name Dispute Assistance." sounds like a very good, much-needed service. If it works.

Comments

Cybersquatting (slightly offtopic)

[Anonymous Coward]

FCFS is a relief when its you that gets the name ... and harsh when you don't. I'm so gutted that someone managed to get a domain just before me, where they want to sell it for loads of money (i.e., do nothing with it) whereas I had loads of plans to develop it.

Also, have you looked at some of the prices of domain names on online auction houses (ebay, etc)? they are crazy! some guy (or gal) is trying to sell really rubbish domains like e4banks.org for thousands and thousands of dollars. Its ludicrous! Just because a nifty domain like business.com sold for millions, they reckon they can get a slice of the cake too. Well, its not going to happen, dudes! The only domain that actually had any bids at all was jenniferaniston.co.uk ...

I'd like to see some sort of clause whereby you cannot sell a domain within a certain period of buying it (say 1 to 3 years) that would hopefully discourage these get-rich-quick merchants.

cheers...

Let's hope

[Chas]

Let's hope that they run it a bit more professionally than their current business. With my domain name, I had to put in MULTIPLE change forms over a period of SIX MONTHS before the damnable domain name finally moved.


Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Lex Informatica

[swerdloff]

Joel Reidenberg would be proud (he wrote the article Lex Informatica, that before we go legislating solutions, someone ought to pay attention to the fact that we can code solutions...)

This still doesn't solve the fundamental problem: domain names are unique, while you can have multiple identical trademarks, assuming varying locations or products. Acme auto vs. Acme fishing tackle, but only one acme dot com.

A start, but not a good enough one.

Criteria for losing a domain name; discussion

[ariux]

For those who don't want to sift thru legalese, under their new policy you lose a domain to someone if:
(1) you have it only to sell it back to them;
(2) you have it only to stop them from using it;
(3) they're your business competitor and you're using it to "disrupt" their business; or
(4) you're impersonating them or faking their sponsorship for commercial gain.

1 and 2 are reasonable, 3 would be a problem if it applied to just anyone (people satirizing or criticizing the trademark owner a la gwbush.com) but is OK restricted to business competitors, and 4 is alright in spirit but could be misused by broad interpretation ("That guy whose last name matches our paint company's trademark is using the disputed domain name to attract customers to his tax consulting business", etc.)

Mostly seems a pretty fair set of rules against both cybersquatting and domain bullying. Exception is that vague 4 may still allow some bullying.

Scalpers

[Money__]

NSI is throwing out a bone to the comunity, but in the end they're just providing a forum for people to log their disputes.

While this is an interesting PR move, it doesn't solve the underlying problem of domain squaters, and their practice of scalping a name.

Actually, I'm curious why more states haven't tried enforcing their scalping laws (i.e. some laws allow for no more than ~10% over the retail price). Scalpers are an interesting breed. They make money off of someone elses (often short lived) brand name. When a record company hears someone scalping a ticket, they often don't take action because it's good PR in that the person hearing story thinks "wow, they payed X to see Y?, they *must* be good). Similarly, this is often the case in domain squating (i.e. ~X million for blahblahblah.com? wow..e-commerce must be hot).

Now allow me to be clear here, I'm not talking obvios domain names without brand name investment, I'm talking about names that people (companies) have spent a lot of money to build brand awarness. Scalping this well built up name is wrong and more states should use the scalping laws already on the books.
_________________________

Just another way for NS to extort money

[Sanity]

Looking through the FAQ they expect it to cost $1000-$2500 to resolve a cyber-squatting issue, that must be, ooh, 90% profit for Network Solutions (how hard can it be to demonstrate that a domain is being held by a cybersquatter). Further, surely those costs should be borne by the cybersquatter, not the organisation whose domain was pirated!

--

News Flash

[ibanix]

Jan 4th, 2000-

Following the lead of several other companies, NSI announced today that it was patenting it's "flagship product", domain names.

"It was a logical move in today's patent-centric world", said the CEO of NSI. "We will be requiring that each person who acquires a domain name from us agree to the new license and pay a new fee; starting rates are $100,000."
On mention that this seemed steep, he replied, "Hey, nobody is _forced_ to purchase a domain name. "

The new license requires, among other new terms, that the domain can not be used to publish information about internet domain names-- unless authorized by NSI.

Same info with clarification

[Carnage4Life]

Interesting interpretations you have there, the problem I have with your interpretations of the domain rules is that you make it seem like the rules are either-or when in fact they are and-and.
Let me explain...
From the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy , where NSI got their rules, it states that applicable disputes occur when

• (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• and

• (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
• and

• (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The points 1 thru 4 you mentioned in your post are paragraph 4b of ICANN's policy, this paragraph is described as definitions of what bad faith from point (iii) in my post are. Therefore not only should there be bad faith but also the complainant needs to also prove that the violator has no legitimate interest in the website as well as is in violation of a trademark. This is slightly more than just proving either of the 4 points you mentioned.

Secondly a clarification, you said
you lose a domain to someone if...
(2) you have it only to stop them from using it;

the ICANN rule is actually you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct ;

PS: NSI's policy is identical to the one on the ICANN page.

Disputes.org/eResolution.ca service opens today

[Froomkin]

Today, as it happens, marks the opening of the Disputes.org/eResolution.ca Consortium. We'll be providing the first wholly online domain name dispute resolution system, and we have a very distinguished panel of arbitrators. It's all explained in our press release or you can go straight to either the eResolution or Disputes.org homepages.

The Consortium is accredited by ICANN, which means you will be able to use our services for all gTLD-related disputes in the legacy root, including domains registered by NSI. I expect we will be listed on the NSI "Domain Magistrate" page soon (as I understand it, that page is really just a front end for the ICANN-mandated dispute process).

I'm a founding member of disputes.org, so I'm biased, but I think our international panel of arbitrators is pretty impressive and the online complaint forms are handsome and functional. What do you think?

P.S. For this purpose, ignore my automatic .sig below. My participation in disputes.org is not connected with my day job....

A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA

This is just ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Po

[Animats]

This is old news. The much-discussed ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy has now been implemented. This is ICANN's scheme, not NSI's, and it applies to all domain registrars.

Whether this is a good idea remains to be seen. The arbitration system used is unusual (compare the American Arbitration Association), and the laws under which disputes are to be decided is unclear. Major disputes will probably still lead to litigation. We'll have to see how this works in practice. But don't blame NSI for this one. Esther Dyson, maybe.