Posted by
michael
on from the old-story,-new-twist dept.
Nick writes "An American businessman will have to go to the UN to defend his right to the URL southafrica.com, as the South African government says it has a right to the domain. Story here.
The owner says it is a free speech issue and that he won't be censored."
This is a case where, unless misreported, this guy is clearly within his rights as the original domain holder to hold on to his domain: he's not
abusing it, nor trying to sell it, and it actually is a commercial venture earning the.com TLD. And as the article points out, new TLDs will be appropriate for what SA wants to do with the site (a travel-info site).
However, WIPO has ruled in the past for "famous name" people, such as Madonna, etc. If this case was basically equal save for the name "South Africa" instead of a celebrity, I would think WIPO would rule in favor of SA. The key difference, however, is that the guy, according to the report, has never attempted to sell the domain, thus he's not 'squatting' as those other cases turned out to be. Again, reasonably, it's in the current holder's favor, but WIPO is very unpredictable; this could easily go either way.
--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
doesn't ANYBODY understand the MEANING of TLD's?
by
ChristTrekker
·
· Score: 4
South Africa already has a domain, a TLD even, that it's fully in control of:.ZA. If somebody's running a business with a legitimate claim to the name "South Africa" no one should be able to touch him.
TLD's need to be meaningful and enforceable. I almost wish the gTLD's would go away in favor of ccTLD's for everybody, including the US. Let your own country deal with disputes in your own courts. These international hassles are a needless pain in the butt.
"There are a lot of domain name issues that seem a hell of a lot murkier. E.g. Should the Zurich insurance group have the right to the zurich.com domain (which they own) or should the fine city of Zurich be able to get the name?"
Is that Zurich, Switzerland, or Zurich, Illinois?
-- Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Slashdot Mirror
However, WIPO has ruled in the past for "famous name" people, such as Madonna, etc. If this case was basically equal save for the name "South Africa" instead of a celebrity, I would think WIPO would rule in favor of SA. The key difference, however, is that the guy, according to the report, has never attempted to sell the domain, thus he's not 'squatting' as those other cases turned out to be. Again, reasonably, it's in the current holder's favor, but WIPO is very unpredictable; this could easily go either way.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
South Africa already has a domain, a TLD even, that it's fully in control of: .ZA. If somebody's running a business with a legitimate claim to the name "South Africa" no one should be able to touch him.
TLD's need to be meaningful and enforceable. I almost wish the gTLD's would go away in favor of ccTLD's for everybody, including the US. Let your own country deal with disputes in your own courts. These international hassles are a needless pain in the butt.
Constitutionally Correct
"There are a lot of domain name issues that seem a hell of a lot murkier. E.g. Should the Zurich insurance group have the right to the zurich.com domain (which they own) or should the fine city of Zurich be able to get the name?"
Is that Zurich, Switzerland, or Zurich, Illinois?
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary