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

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.

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.