Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Dispute Decisions Contestable In U.S. Courts
Thu Anon Coward writes: "Yahoo is reporting that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has said that WIPO domain disputes can be contested in court. A domain name holder may file a civil action suit in U.S. courts. Apparently we can thank the 'Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,' signed by former President Clinton."
I understood WIPO to be non-binding arbitration in any case.
This has always been the case, the UN has no direct legal authority to do anything at all, unless it involves wars between different countries.
WIPO arbitration has always been that, arbitration. Not legally binding. (of course, who knows what kind of contract stuff you implicitly signed on for when you purchased your domain)
The fact that IP owners get to pick the arena for the legal fight is a crock of shit... and in my opinion should cast a lot of doubt on any decision handed down by WIPO, who always vote with only business consideration in mind (the few cases where they have allowed the copyright holder to keep their domain, it was because they felt that the incumbent had a useful business reason for keeping the domain).
The US courts might not be the most fair organizations, but I'd imagine that they'd be a hell of a lot better then WIPO.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
To quote: "federal courts have jurisdiction over international domain name disputes".
This still won't take all the power away from WIPO and ICANN that it needs, but it's a step towards better arbitration. Domain names are not trademarks!
I really hate Dan Patrick.
While it's nice that the US govt has some sovriengty inspite of the WIPO, the only thing that's really going to get this dog off our backs is civil disobedience and technical solutions like a freenet based domain name structure instead of a DNS based one.
Of course, the real threat of the WIPO is not domains, but copyrights and patents. They've played crutial roles in trying to destroy open source, and trying impose AIDS patents at the cost of 10 million African lives.
Why should any country be able to dictate matters of Internet-based disputes? Oh yeah, it's because the US government has an idea that they own the Internet.
Honestly, we need a new world micro-government to govern matters of the Internet, made up of technology experts and civil rights activists, who can make sure that one government cannot control the Internet.
O how I wish I was a Sealand citizen, but unfortunately you can't be one.
-evan.
However, this also means that if they happen to make a good decision in favor of the little guy, a big company can then tie it up in court and cost them millions in legal fees.
Hopefully, anything that gets taken to a real court will be decided quickly, because the situation is usually pretty simple and the courts should be able to affirm or reverse a decision without too much heavy thinking.
So... a non-state based virtual matrix can be governed by a state... This does not compute, error, error... *bursts into sparks*
It is for this reason that I think that there should be an Infinite number of TLDs, or may just a damn large number. Of course there are reasons against it. but this would serve to blunt bully tactics to some degree
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
>For its part, ICANN said it does not agree or >disagree with the federal appeals court decision.
This is why it's called ICANN and not IWILL
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
For those of you who didn't read the story *ahem*
"If the parties aren't satisfied with the outcome of the judge's decision or the trials through the UDRP, they have the right to have it tried in court," said Mary Hewitt, an ICANN spokeswoman. "It's always been that way; it's written that way...It's absolutely the prerogative of the parties involved. Either way, whatever the decision is, it doesn't matter; they have absolutely the right to go to court following a UDRP" proceeding.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Hmm check out VivendiUniversalRealySucks.com
O:-)
when you get the government involved in spam they go the whole nine yards and fuck us over. All i can say is Thank you United States and your fuck the people acts.
You're 100% right. US Government != World Government.
Now someone has to tell that those Americans...
...the U.S. government is getting involved in situations that should be beyond their control. How is it that a U.S. court gets to overide a internationally accepted organization whose purpose is to provide continuity. Especially in regards to the internet, a medium in which borders do not really apply very well.
Any wonder why the international community looks at us (Americans) as a bunch of rich bullies?
...that I see this ad on a page bemoaning the fact that morning news programs spend a third of their time selling things to the public...
Regardless of jurisdiction, he has an untenable case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals didn't rule on the merits of the case, simply ruling that the US courts have jursidiction, something that both US law and ICANN's UDRP agree on.
For background on the case, see this article on slashdot, or these cases on WIPO's site. In a nutshell, he registered domains for two Brazillian soccer teams, Cruizero and Corinthians. He approached Corinthians about selling the domain, they sent him a notice to hand it over. He then put up bible quotes, and claimed that they were stomping on his first amendment and freedom of religion rights, but lost in UDRP proceedings.. It doesn't help his case that the registrant for his domains was "prestige domains (for sale)", nor does it paint a good picture that he registered dowjonesupdate.com and tonimorrison.com, though he handed over both of those without ICANN interceding.
This guy is a domain speculator, pure and simple. He (rightfully) lost two cases to the trademark holders, and he's not happy that he didn't get paid for being first to register the domains. Personally, I'm surprised the low-life found the nickles to rub together to retain a lawyer to put it to the courts.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has ruled that U.S. Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction in domain names disputes.
There's a lot of folk on Slashdot who seem to have no clue about how international laws or politics work. Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from posting on here.
Virtually every international treaty is a voluntary agreement. Any country that doesn't like the provisions is free to quit. Don't like the WTO? Well, don't sign it. Don't bitch about other countries benefiting from it, though. Any country that feels a particular agreement is prejudicial to its interests is free to not accept it.
A world micro-government is precisely the wrong thing to do. There is no challenging the authority of such a government. There is nothing to prevent the more influential countries from ganging up to screw the others.
Look at things like the CTBT (Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty) for example. Countries like India and Pakistan don't think that is fair to them because it allows countries like the US to keep their nukes while forcing them to give up theirs. So what do they do? They refuse to sign it!.
A world micro-government would force them to accept what (in their view) is an iniquitable solution.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things work right now. Yes, some countries are able to get more but that's only because they bring more to the table. And this is not about military power - I can't think of a time when a country was bombed because they didn't sign a trade treaty. This is about financial power. "You want access to the US's markets? Well, how much is that worth to you? What are you willing to give up for that access?" The only reason the US has more of a say in these affairs is because the other countries would rather let the US have the bigger say than drop out of the agreement.
Nothing is broken. Move along.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Bill Clinton will be remembered by the people of the US for being a hot rabbit. That is unfortunate. Silently the man has done so much to protect human rights and the environment in his country. Suffice to say that the other guy shows up after naming himself President and look at where we are now in terms of privacy, economy and international affairs. Later, historical books will write about Clinton and everyone will have forgotten about... what was the name of this stupid brat who sued him to get media attention and money again?
Unfortunately this is likely always going to be the case. Thanks to the tencity of the united states we'll likely never see any other country receive near as much control over the internet; what couple possibly motivate them to stop looking out for their own interests?
/.'ers. The secret hand of nerds.... scary.
To be fair though, I'm not really complaining about power the US has over the internet, provided the government doesn't start directly waiving its hand over matters (like we've seen in China) I'm not going to stand up to the working model.
Food for thought though: I'd rather have to deal with a domain dispute in a Circuit court than deal with corrupt systems like the former Milosevic era Yugoslavia: They found most major world leaders guilty of something or other in absence of them being there. At least I'd have the opportunity to state my case in the States- whether it falls on deaf ears or not is for the people to decide.
Or, worse comes to worse we could join onto the whole Illuminati idea and start a secret world government founded by
-Wrexsoul
--- Need web hosting?
The matrix has you.
At least the internet's not dominated by thinking machines our to control us. Or wait, maybe it is and we're all stuck in some kind of giant computer simulation.
Nah, but that'd make for a good movie, hope someone picks up on my idea.
-Wrexsoul
--- Need web hosting?
Until domain names came along, few people bothered with supplemental registry trademarks, but because ICANN's rules respect even supplemental registry trademarks, it's worth doing.
I hold Downside(tm), downside.com, Animats(tm), and animats.com. Downside was accepted with no problems and is on the principal register, but Animats was initially rejected as a generic term for artificial animals, and I accepted a supplemental registration on that one.
You must be a hero in 2600. You really showed them whos on top. I mean if i were an angst ridden 14 year old, i would think that was great.
it is time to reclaim .us domain and force all american registrants to register under (former domain).com/net/org/mil/gov.us. This is the only way to keep the international jursidiction from getting out of hand and keeps the U.S. from being targeted even more by hate.
This has always been the case, the UN has no direct legal authority to do anything at all, unless it involves wars between different countries.
WIPO arbitration has always been that, arbitration. Not legally binding. (of course, who knows what kind of contract stuff you implicitly signed on for when you purchased your domain)
The UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever, but the analysis fails from there going forward. Registrars under the ICANN must have registrants contractually bound to the UDRP, which means that the ICANN-sponsored arbitrators arbitrate the "ownership" of the domain name -- which is just a contract between the registrant and registrar to maintain the DNS records.
The arbitration result is legally enforceable in the United States, without review on the merits, as the arbitration is a final, unreviewable, determination on the merits of the CONTRACT between the registrant and the registrar. This doesn't mean that a losing complainant couldn't sue under ACPA, unfair comeptition and trademark law after losing, to enjoin the USE of the domain name by the registrant.
Oddly enough, the first circuit held that ACPA appears to effectively 'horn in" on that process, and would certainly preempt contract law to the extent that it does.
But make no mistake, UDRP dispute resolution is hardly a non-binding process. If a court order isn't sought and does not issue, a lost domain name is gone, gone, gone.
This only affect international disputes, say those in Canada.
To quote: "federal courts have jurisdiction over international domain name disputes".
ACPA and Lanham Act section 43(c) provide all the relief a nasty plaintiff might want in a domestic dispute. Nothing more is necessary. Any suggestion that the Court passed on or limited domestic complaints turns the case on its head -- this one addressed international complaints because the application of ACPA in that context raises significant constitutional issues under article III, and some treaty law questions.
This still won't take all the power away from WIPO and ICANN that it needs, but it's a step towards better arbitration. Domain names are not trademarks!
No, they are not. But once you use them in commerce, which is actually pretty not hard to do, that USE can give rise to trademark infringement. Even if it doesn't, there is a basis for a legal claim for dilution for ANY use "in commerce," even if it doesn't compete. Finally, even if none of those things happen, there is always a claim under ACPA.
The authorities have always known the obvious solution. I have been using WIPO.org.uk as the best domain name to get the message out ;-)
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce (DOC.gov) are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem.
The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, August 22, 2000: "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."
A restricted TLD is required to replace the trademark symbol. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panelist judge.
This is very important, as virtually every word is trademarked - Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the USA alone. Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The US Department of Commerce allow this conflict to continue purposefully, knowing they abridge peoples right to use these words - even the common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. You cannot make your own small business using a dictionary word, it is bound to conflict with some trademark or other - check yourself. People also cannot make fan sites or protest about corporations (one of reasons why they do not want it). This violates the American Department of Commerce own First Amendment.
The authorities are allowing certain trademarks to be abused by their owners, giving them dominance over others using same words. Example; Caterpillar tractors claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet - even though there are hundreds of trademarks using the word 'cat' - IN THE U.S. ALONE. The United States Department of Commerce and the World Intellectual Property Organization do not seem to mind that all trademarks fight it out - or that one has this illegal dominant position. This is against unfair competition law.
For the TM lawyers - yes, I know about classifications. Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with UN WIPO.org.
...WIPO decisions are also detestable in U.S. courts.
You do realize that it was Clinton who approved the Hollywood funded DMCA right?
The Anti-Cybersquatting Corporate Protection Act?
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Umm... Isn't this the same Bill Clinton who's administration proposed the Clipper chip? Who signed the DMCA into law?
Let's face it, neither party has a monopoly on attacking individual rights.
The rest of the world has merely been granted the privelage of peering with us. Call it flamebait of you will, but the US government created the Internet, and reserves the right to decide how it's managed. Don't like it? Have your govenrment create a network seperate from the Internet and manage it however you'd like.
Why do you waste your bandwith recieving ads?
Trademark filings are simple enough to do it yourself. The Nolo Press books on trademarks can be helpful.
As if this makes up for DMCA, UCITA and all the other crap the folks in the music and movie industries bought with their millions from Bubba?
I was always under the impression that nobody "ultimately" owned the internet. If the U.S. government did, don't you think there would be a specific 'Federal Internet Tax?'
Last I checked, there is no 'FIT.'
Does the U.S. government get tax dollars for every individual who is connected to the net? Does the gov't get tax dollars for every country that has the "privelage of peerig with us."
No.
Besides, where is the internet? It must have a physical location if the gov't owns it. And since our computers are attached to the net, than doesn't the gov't own those too, in a sense? If so, then don't keep anything illegal on that puppy, cuz they can take it whenever they want.
If the gov't owns the idea or whatever, than do they own the ideas that are expressed on the net? Does that mean they can regulate all that is expressed on the net?
I am an American.
when German (or French, or British, or Canadian) courts rule that *they* also have jurisdiction? There is certainly no reason why American courts would have any more jurisdiction over international domain names than any other national courts.
Will we see different root nameservers serving up different DNS based on the rulings of the courts presiding in their jurisdiction?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Finally I can be sued from all over the world. God bless the global village.
Money, and ultimately, the power that it buys, is real 'law'.
ever wonder why you have such low moderations?
I don't, because I've read with distain just about every post you have made in the last few months and you realy don't have anything worth hearing. How about come up with a well thought out position for a change? I mean really, are you like 12?
If the WIPO route of resolving a domain conflict is indeed arbitration, then yes the outcome could be contested in a proper court of law. This is however uncommon.
Arbitration is normally a voluntary process. The two parties both agree to go for arbitration, and before they do, they normally sign cross-undertakings, agreeing that the outcome of the arbitration is final and they would accept it. So if one party doesn't like the outcome? Tough luck. If they would go against the undertaking already signed and bring the case to court, the other side would show the judge the undertakings, and chances are, the judge would then throw the case out.
Look, the ICANN crowd set up the system so that domains were valuable and scarce. Now they complain when good old capitalists try to, well, capitalize on it.
The result, as we all know, is that only ICANN acredited registrars are allowed to speculate on domain names. Everybody else is subject to UDRP action. I'd like to see a UDRP complaint lodged against VRSN for holding a domain name in bad faith. Maybe someone should pick one of the thousands of expired-but-not-released names, register it as a trademark, and file a complaint.
Edith Keeler Must Die
flamebait