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."
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.
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.
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
The arbitration under the UDRP is binding, to the extent that the registrar must comply with the result unless otherwise ordered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Unless a losing party gets an order from a Court, the loser is out of luck.
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.