Slashdot Mirror
Chip Rosenthal Wins Unicom Domain Name Case
Seth Schoen writes "As seen last month,
Chip Rosenthal (whom many people know for
Reply-to
Munging Considered Harmful, among other projects) was threatened
with the loss of his domain
name unicom.com.
He's now won in court and
will get to keep the domain, at least for the time being."
Mr. Rosenthal secured the domain in 1990. It seemd to be his. How this got that far into the courts mystifies me.
According to the plaintiff's charges, Rosenthal was being accused of cyberpiracy. Why? It's almost like a child throwing a tantrum when he can't get his way.
Sure, cybersquatting just to extort money out of a company or to otherwise do harm to a company is wrong; in these situations I think companies have legitimate beef with cybersquatters. However, let's not ignore that fact that this guy registered the domain in 1990!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I have never been a fan of companies being able to override people who own domain names. First come, First serve should apply. Especially if the domain name was originally purchased before the company was even formed. A similar example was the newish Minnesota Wild NHL team sued a childrens magazine(titled Wild) even though the magazine was around for years before the team even existed. Crazy.
I've met Chip. He's a decent guy. It's nice to see that the good guy does win once in a while.
He wins the right to keep his page up at that domain, and, within minutes, we bring it back down. Now that's irony.
Checked out his website, got a laugh out of it. Apparently during the case, he was using his website to keep us informed of the progress of the case. So, he was defending his right to keep his domain, on which he reported on the defending of his right to keep his domain, on which he reported on the defending......etc
-Space for rent
Companies should be checking domain name availability before coming up with names, either that or develop a more relaxed attitude to all the different TLD's. - I worked for too many firms that consider 300 odd names their right.
Unfortunately, this is a limited decision, but hopefully others (like WIPO!) would consider some of this ruling to be reasonable when deciding other domain name battles.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Let me preface this by stating I'm currently a law student (actually in my civil procedure class right now).
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him.
There are several ways to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant:
-If Chris had "systematic and continuous" contacts with the State of California
-If his website was of an ambiguous (courts have a nebulous examination standard) level of interactivity and accessible from California (contacts with California established via the Internet)
Because they didn't find either of those, the court determined that he couldn't be tried in that court. This does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a case in Texas against him.
Basically he just won this battle. It's possible the war is still going on.
the case was tossed out by the judge because Chip was from Texas, not because he was there first or anything to do with trademarks. This was very similar to what LindowsOS is trying to do with Microsoft. MS wants the case tried under Washington state laws, but LindowsOS is trying to get the case tossed because they havent done any business in Washington.
At any rate, Unicom Systems Inc will find a way to keep things going against Unicom Systems Development, we'll here more about this in a few months.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Again, this case was not decided on the merits of the issue, rather just a procedural thing.
Making a expensive luxury car in the $50 000 range costs about $3 000 - $4 000. A $25 000 car costs about two grand to make. The usual costs for making a car is a bit below 10% of the sale price.
Intels top-of-the-line processors costs $20 or so to make but you buy them for $500 or so. Your typical stereo or freezer or whatever costs just a fraction of what you buy them for to make.
Despite that this may seem like a huge overprice those companies sure hasn't profit margins like 99%. Intel has negative cashflow (right? I'm not 100% sure) right now. It DO costs lots and lots of money to develop new products, test them for safety and so on.
Software isn't really any different. Just like everything else the value is mostly in the research&development (and marketing) of the products.
People just don't seem to realize that "intellectual property" is the major costs of ANY product these days. But hey, this isn't bad! Thats whats make the people valuable and if you ask your gandfather I can bet that he will tell you how the workers situation was then the valuable wasn't in the worker but mostly in material and machines. It was a good bit worse than today. The worker has never been to valuable as today.
Chip is in Austin, Texas, but the Plaintiff sued him in Los Angeles.
When we responded to the Complaint, we made several alternative motions, one being that a court in California lacked personal jurisdiction over Chip, not only because he's in Texas, but also because he does not have sufficient contacts with California to make it reasonable for him to be dragged into court here.
The Court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That's a big victory, there's much to be said for the proposition that courts do not have unlimited reach, even when the Internet is involved (think Matt Pavlovich and the California DVDCCA case, for example), but it isn't a ruling on the merits.
If Plaintiff should choose to file a new action against Chip in Austin, we have plenty of ammunition for arguing the merits of his rightful claim to the unicom.com domain name, but readers should not assume that this win addressed that issue. The Court's ruling is here.
The court did not rule on the substantive issues - whether or not Rosenthal has the right to continue using the domain name, or whether his use of the name violates the California company's trademark. Rosenthal won because the California court did not have personal jurisidction over him - a procedural matter.
That the corp sueing him apparently didn't go through the ICANN name dispute resolution system? Interesting that they realize that ICANN has no real power in those sorts of disputes. Not that it's any surprise See this story from a year ago for another example of using the courts to avoid/overrule ICANN.
Best Slashdot Co
This decision, though good for Chip, does not address the merits of the case, only the question of whether a California Court has jurisdiction to hear it. Presumably, the plaintiffs could got to a Federal Court somewhere and get the case heard (disclaimer: I don't know all of the facts, so that is merely a presumption on my part)
That doesn't mean the decision isn't interesting. The judge includes a nice discussion of purposeful availment and standards used to decide when the operator of a web site has or has not made him/herself subject to a jurisdiction's laws. Very good to see that mere presence doesn't trip the wire.
Believe me, you do not want this kind of case settled sole on the basis of who-filed-first. If we took that approach, we'd all be paying half our income to the holders of submarine patents.
The very fact that this got as far as it did shows a ton about our legal system. A company with relatively deep pockets is able to force a guy to go to court and pay two lawyers to fight a frivilous lawsuit.
;-)
If I were him, I would file a countersuit. He registered the domain in 1990, and since the company didn't file for the trademark until 1997, he might have a lawsuit for *them* for trying to name their company to take advantage of his domain's popularity.
Josh Woodward
First come, First serve should apply.
Actually, I have a real problem with that. There were all sorts of speculators who tried to sign up domains for recognizable trademarks in the hopes of making a lot of money selling the domain back to the trademark holder. To me, that is un-acceptable.
Now, the people who registered generic terms for domains (i.e. drugs.com, beer.com, etc) - those were the smart people because the domain could properly be sold to the highest bidder.
In this case (and the example you quote with the NHL Wild), the companies trying to get a domain that was registered long before the company existed, these people are no better than the cyber-squatters and do not deserved to be treated any better.
It's too bad that they are the ones with the money and the lawyers though. It would be nice if ICANN and their *cough* impartial *cough* dispute mechanism could take this sort of thing into account. Mind you, it would be nice if ICANN had the broad interests of the entire Internet community at heart as opposed to the corporate interests it seems to represent.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
You might want to write up an article about the case for this place or k5.
Best Slashdot Co
Frivilous lawsuits like this should be highly profitable to those attacked. Say a $1Mill USD award to whoever get's sued by a company for something stupid like this? Granted it would take a court system that isnt corrupt in every crevice.. (remember judges are lawyers first therefore are scumbags)
Makes you love this country eh?
The plaintiffs failed to show that the they had even bothered to do business or anything else in Texas, and so the california court could not compell a Texas business to had over the Domain name.
Also, the plaintiff had abandoned their trade mark in 1994. and were trying to assert it now.
doh
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
So instead of losing the domain, he just gets slashdotted.
The thing that bothers me the most about this is how much time and money it cost Chip just to defend himself. How many of us have those resources? If someone came after one of my domains, I'd fight as much as I could on my own, but in the end would probably be forced to give up. Thats what these corporate types want. they have the money and the resources to do this. There needs to be a law to protect US from this behavior.
Don't Tread on Me
I was wondering if this was like the eReferee case, where the corporation lost in UDRP, and then won in court.
Best Slashdot Co
The reports of my death are greatly ....
When did this happen? Why wasn't I told?
I am not rolling cigars in Tampa, or anywhere.
Try the main page, and I see it now says:
Okay, the google cache for his main page is at: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ta1nhhNpbHMCTom.
Oh arse
I forgot to say that the judge here did not mention the issue of prejudice in the opinion so 41(b) is invoked (or would be if Plaintiff sought a new trial on the same claim) :)
So what we have here is an individual claiming his rights to a .com(mercial) address which he himself claims not to be using commercially ?
.com addresses? As far as I'm concerned, he is a squatter in some sense. Or should we change the meaning of .com to .common ?
.biz, one has to ask whether that will be under better control than .com. Or will .com-owners claim ownership on .biz domains with the argument that "customers" shouldn't be confused when visiting both unicom.biz and unicom.com ?
Shouldn't a commercial company like Unicom have the rights to the Unicom.com address, rather that an individual exploiting the weak control of
And with a new top domain like
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I am Slashdotted Sorry ... this web site is Slashdotted at the moment.
Here is the Google cache version of my main page.
Until my new shipment of bandwidth arrives, you may want to visit the Save Unicom.Com web site to read about the lawsuit.
Now how's *that* for Karma Whorin! ;-)
If you read through Unicom Systems, Inc.'s first filing, you'll see that they claim to have been using "Unicom" as a trademark since 1989 -- which seems to give them priority, except...
Lots of other companies have used trademarks including the word "unicom". Rosenthal says he searched the federal trademark registry and found more than 20 registrations besides unicomsi's 3. Or in a search I just ran myself, Thomas Register (http://www.thomasregister.com/, registration required) lists 3 companies whose names start with "Unicom", not including Unicom Systems Inc. There's a maker of industrial air filters in Oregon, a printer in Alberta, and a "LAN products manufacturer" in California. I wonder if that one has heard from Unicomsi?
IANAL, but it certainly looks to me that, no matter when unicomsi registered their various trademarks, they've never had priority to just the name "unicom", or even to that name in a computer-related market. According to Rosenthal, unicomsi's registered marks are graphic designs including the word "UNICOM" -- that makes the whole mark a valid trademark (assuming the graphics are unique), but it hardly gives them the right to the name itself. And if they did own the name as related to software, still they failed to defend it for 11 years.
Anyway, this round was only about whether u-si could sue a Texas website in a California court. If u-si wants to hire a Texas lawyer, they can start over again in Texas -- of course, this is more expensive for them, and I'd certainly be amazed if they won in _any_ court on the facts I know of.
If they do continue in Texas, a suggested settlement: Rosenthal puts their banner ad at the top of his web page "Were you looking for Unicom Systems, Inc., support for legacy...". Not that he couldn't beat them entirely, but it would save time and money.
The great thing about that decision is that it tends against all the various silly lawsuits claiming that because your web site can be seen, or is mirrored in, or links to sites in some other jurisdiction, you can be yanked into court in a different state or country.
and I note no mention of costs in the decision. Is this automatic in the civil aspect of U.S. Federal courts, or will you be applying separately for such costs?
BTW, you have a very impressive grandmother. Mine was first female mayor on the Canadian prairie (in Estevan, Saskatchewan), and I'd hate to see them arm-wrestle. Say hello to her.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration defines the term UNICOM as the radio handle of the managing authority of an airport, usually the airport's Fixed Base Operator (FBO), the airport's local "service station." That use goes back to the earliest days of aviaton radio in the 1920s.
At O'Hare airport UNICOM is on the 122.95 frequency.
Fighting over the first use of the term UNICOM is like fighting over who owns "home page."
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
Again, this is why the generic TLD's (.com, .net, etc) were a bad idea to from the beginning and should be done away with. We still live in a world with nations that have their own laws. Every domain should have a ccTLD, so the applicable laws apply.
If you register a common word as a domain (beer.com.us) then you can auction it off. Individual countries would be responsible for 2LD management so that McDonald's (the restaurant chain) and McDonald's (the hardware store) could both have their name. You shouldn't be allowed to squat on your name across every namespace when others have a legitimate claim as well.
If you are truly international, register your .int domain, give up rights/claims to any ccTLD domain you have, and agree to settle disputes with WIPO or similar agency.
These stupid domain-name-trademark infringement cases would become drastically more scarce. Seems fair to me.
Constitutionally Correct
It's a valid argument, but a) there is no TLD specified for personal sites and b) whether or not it was first intended for commercial use, it certainly HAS become the generic or "common" domain.
You have to remember that in 1990 when Chip registered UNICOM.COM, there were few TLD's available. .EDU, Nope not a school. .GOV, nope not part of the Gov't. .NET, nope again not a network provider/company. .ORG Nada not a non-profit. that leaves only .COM.
I seem to recall reading Chip's posts on usenet back then and UNICOM.COM was his address and the address of his 'company'. That alone gives hime the right to register and use unicom.com.
One of the 'rules' for sitenames even back then was All the good names are taken.
Perhaps they use the courts since the courts can award monetary damages and can order the defendent to pay for the plaintiff's lawyers and for the court's costs (i.e. the defendant has to pay for all the costs of the attack against him). The plaintiff ends up paying nothing in that case.
Also, violations of the various trademark and cybersquatting acts can lead to up to a $100K fine!
The worst a UDRP hearing can do is a domain transfer.
Maybe the company wanted to line its pockets with the defendant's money and/or make him bleed. Note: even middle class defendants have houses that can be foreclosed on and sold to pay a judgement - so a lawsuit is useful to hurt/destroy an opponent and can be profitable even if the defendant doesn't have any spare money lying around (since the courts can sell everything one owns).
Just because it isn't moral doesn't mean it isn't legal.
Plaintiffs get undeserved judgements that bankrupt defendants so often it is commonplace.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
So much for the posting guidelines... (If you can't be deep, be funny)
Oh well, everyone find something different funny, I'll just try to be more obvious next time.
(Am I the only one who thinks Offtopic should be +1? The most and probably only interesting conversations I've been in are the ones that wander over all kinds of different topics.)
-Space for rent
A squatter, as has been pointed out, is one who takes the name of a company in hopes to sell it. Obviously, in this case, the term does not, in any streach of the imagination, apply.
The problem with .com is not the fault of Chip Rosenthal, but rather the management of domain names. An interesting example is Microsoft. Go to either http://www.microsoft.com or http://www.microsoft.net. Both result in the same site, both are commercial sites, but one is .net.
Unicom.com also can justify being a .com in that it is a service to the commercial community. I came across it while seeking information on mailing lists (granted, by the time I ran across it, it was slashdotted, and I can't see the article).
As to Unicom having a right to the domain, there is no justification for that. They waited all this time to set up a website, they made no attempt to take care of this facet of their interests, and in no way affected Rosenthal's decision to register the address.
I'm also rather disgusted by the reasoning behind the Squatter rulings. The issue is not that they tried to profit from the URL, but copyright/trademark infringment. Take for instance AltaVista.com. It was registered before the search engine, the owner had legal claim to it, yet he sold it. This is no different from companies buying a valuable piece of real estate they have no intention of developing. They take the risk and expense on themselves, and profit if it pays off.
Interestingly enough, the unicom site is slashdotted, but the www.unicomsi.com site is not. (But gee, those pages sure are loading slowly. I plan on checking the page-load speed several times today to see if it gets any worse.)
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
The Website belongs to Unicom Systems Development, Chip's professional alter ego, so it's definitely a valid registraion. The Crazy Finn
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
There is a case to be made that there is nothing wrong with cybersquatting. From my point of view, its no different than when some smart investors back in the day bought lots of worthless land and held onto it because they knew eventually railroad companies would need it. Nothing wrong with that -- they had foresight, the railroad companies didn't. Similarly, a wise person today would buy land about a block back from the beachfront on California. Why? Because the average water line is advancing. In about 40 or so years, land that is now "beach front property" in California will be underwater and land that is now worthless and a little bit back, behind the current beachfront property, will be beachfront property. Nothing wrong with that either. In both of these cases, there is nothing wrong, even if the individual only bought the land to later sell it to the railroad company or hotel company at a high price.
, and has no intention of using it for any purpose, but only trying to extract maximal money, that's cybersquatting. But if they put up such a site and use it constructively -- i.e., perhaps they have their own organization/group abbreviated by "ORGANIZATION", or perhaps they with to criticize said organization, or perhaps they want to make it an informal "fan page" -- then its not cybersquatting and the company has no claim.
However, consider a reverse case. Consider if a smart large bank -- like JP Morgan and Co -- buys tons and tons of land, which is now cheap. Despite the land now being cheap, it will eventually be valuable, as the US population is increasing and more space will be required to house future populations. Once over-crowding starts occuring, and people experience the need to perhaps live on the inter-city land that populates our expressways/highways/throughways/whatever, the banks will be in prime-time position to sell that land at outrageous prices. That doesn't seem so fair, and for good reason. Why? Because it is the powerful using their resources to take advantage of the disempowered.
Though these cases are relevant to the internet-case of cybersquatting and reverse-cyber-squatting, they don't map directly. These cases deal with real-world examples, real world property. The internet is more metaphysical, abstract: in the realm of ideas.
(1) Cybersquatting is registering a domain name with no intent to use it, but simply the intent to use the name as leverage to get a company, organization, or person to buy it at the highest price possible; alternatively, the site may be used for some constructive purpose, but aa temporary location for that constructive purpose, with the end goal being using that domain name to extract maximum money from another entity.
a. Against a company. An example would be my registering the domain name www.ibm.org and never using it for anything, but simply hoping that IBM would pay you money to get the rights to it. This brings up an important point. As IBM already has a website -- ibm.com -- its claim to take that site from the original owner based solely on cybersquatting is diminished. IBM already has a recognizable domain name which will bring most people to it: in fact, the most recognizable domain name. Company.com is what you type as a standard to get to a companies home page. A case where the company would have a strong claim would be where it had no internet site before, and someone put up site wwww.company-that-previously-had-no-site.com, and put nothing on it, its clearly to extract money. However, if they put up such a site and provided a message board about company products, criticisms, etc, as well as information and hints from ppl who've bought their products, then its not cybersquatting and the organization has no claim.
b. Against an organization. For example, registering the domain name www.naral.net in hopes of extracting money from NARAL. Again, the same as above applies. NARAL has the most obvious most recognizable website for what they are, so their claim is diminished. But if someone puts up a site wwww.organization-that-previously-had-no-site.com
c. Against a person. This hasn't occured much yet, but it may in the future. For example person A, named John Doe, puts up a website named www.janedoe.com. He has no intention of using that website, but knows Jane Doe is rich and will eventually want to have her own website after her own name; so he simply holds onto the website, in hopes that eventually he can squeeze her. This is cybersquatting. But if another woman with the same name, Jane Doe, puts up a website and uses it, its not cybersquatting. Finally, if a company or organization puts up a website with a persons name -- unless it be an organization member -- that's cybersquatting. Organizations/companies have no business putting up sites named with people's name. The only exception would be if that person is a member of the organization, or if they want to use that person as a positive example; i.e., an anarchist organization putting up the domain name KattieSierra.com to honor her. There's nothign malevolent about that; though, of course, if she doesn't want it, she has the rights to claim it. Every individual should be able to claim a domain name named after them. In cases where individuals share the same first, middle, and last names, first come first serve (unless one David Cassidy puts up a website titled David Heinrich to try to extract money from all the other David Heinrich). These are the easy cases. What about the hard cases. What if someone who hates you puts up a website with your first, middle, and last name -- johnxdoe -- and spews about how much of a jerk you are, makes hateful remarks about you, and otherwise demeans you on the site. Or worse, what if said person puts up a website with your name and pretends to be you, except misrepresenting you? I think that these cases are unacceptable. And I realize that's iffy. If someone wants to put up a website trying to masquerade as me or insult me, they should have to in some way put "anti" or something similar in the address: i.e., www.antidavidheinrich.com. This is a minor restriction on freedom of speech which serves to prevent misrepresentation.
Now, back to the comparisons with people hoarding potential rail-road land back in the day, or buying "2nd tier" beach property in California. There is a clear difference between those cases and stategic registration of domain names. Those cases apply for physical property and must be strategically made; one can't simply buy all land. Furthermore, one is actually abstracting the real value the land will hold in the future. That property is in fact that valuable, and would cost that much to the hotels. But if I squat a domain name, the company might have to pay me a million dollars for something that would've costed only a few bucks otherwise.
Its not that I'm for big corporations. Its that this type of game-playing demeans the usefulness of the internet and domain names. And its not to say that big corporations don't play this game to.
Corporations usually don't engage in cybersquatting; though they could if they wanted to. Cybersquatting is really a riskless activity, as I believe it should be. Do you really want to fine someone or put them in jail for that? The worst that can happen is the person loses his domain name, and doesn't get to sell it to the corporation for a high price. But back to corporations -- what they do do is distort cybersquatting norms to allow them to strangle competition or prevent sites from displaying that are critical of them, and otherwise abuse domain-name norms.
A site opens up with the domain name, www.anti-riaa.com, and uses it to harsly criticize the RIAA. The RIAA sues for "cybersquatting". Plainly ludicrous. Cybersquatting implies that the "target" had the intent or motive to want to use the domain-name. The RIAA would never use that domain-name. Yet, they want to claim it in order to prevent criticism. This is a kind of reverse cybersquatting. It furthermore diminishes the functionality of domain names. People expect that if they type in such a domain name, they'll get a website against the RIAA, not a blank page.
Another case is where companies try to take away competing companies domain names, or individuals domain names based on "trademark similarlities". Prime example, Lindows.com. Do they really think that people will confuse Windows with Lindows? Most intelligent people wouldn't. But even if they would, that's not Lindows fault -- that's the fault of ppl who are so dumb. Furthermore, Lindows intent isn't to confuse people, making them think its an MS product. Its simply to let them know that it should work fine with MS software. If anyone is confused, they'll be straightened out once they look at the sight. More disturbing is the implication by MS that they have trademark rights to anything that rhymes with Windows, or if of a similar sound.
I think its obvious to most COMMON-SENSE people that something is or is not cybersquatting when they see it. But that ridiculous definition of "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't do. The public has a right to know EXACTLY is and is not acceptable; EXACTLY what is an is not, for example, "PORNOGRAPHY" (one of the more brilliant quotes by one of the 9 wise men, "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it"). If we cannot define precisely what is not an acceptable activity, we have no right to expect people not to do it. People need to know the rules of the game before they play. There's no reason why norms, laws, customs, etc can't be as precisely defined as the rules of chess.
For example, in chess, there are a few official rules, clearly defined, and there are also some "unofficial" rules which any two professionals understand:
(1) The official rules. I.e., how each piece moves, exceptions to the normal movement of pieces, conditions in which the king must move, stalemate conditions, and checkmate conditions.
(2) The unofficial rules. A typical set goes something like this: 1 You touch a piece, you have to move it; 2 No taking back moves; 3 No talking; 4 No motions, positions, etc that would distract the opponent and detract from his/her ability to think.
The rules in chess are clearly defined. There is no ambiguity.
The rules governing law and domain-name resolution should be the same: precisely clear. I will attempt to propose some here. I do not pretend that they are perfectly clear, nor that they are comprehensive. But I will try to make them as much so as I can. Obviously, a real set of rules needs to be thoroughly thought out. Each rule must be stated as clearly as possible, as elegantlty as possible, and with as few words as possible. There must be a sufficient number of rules to cover all "inappropriate activity". Here's my rough draft:
1. IF someone registers a domain name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, assuming entity-name exists at the time of registration, AND that someone has no intent of using that domain name, but only trying to extract money from entity-name, THEN it is cybersquatting. The entity-name should be able to obtain entity-name.com from the cybersquatter at the price of domain-name registration.
2. IF someone registers a domain-name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, AND actually uses it for some purpose, whether connected to the domain-name or not, AND has no intent of using it to extract money from entity-name, THEN that is not cybersquatting. Entity-name can always register the domain-name Entity_name.com.
3. IF someone registers a domain-name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, AND uses it for some purpose, whether connected to the domain-name or not, BUT has the intent of never-the-less using it to extract money from entity-name, AND is thus simply using that "purpose" as a front, THEN that is cybersquatting. The individual can copy the web-site content to his hard drive and post it at another domain-name. Meanwhile, entity-name should be able to get entity-name.com from that individual by paying him the cost of registration.
4. IF someone registers a domain name (entity-name.com) before entity-name exists, THEN no matter the post-entity-name existance activity of that someone, it is not cybersquatting. Whether or not the indivual makes use of that domain-name, it is clearly not his intent to use the domain-name to extract money from entity-name. Simply because the person has not yet used entity-name.com by the time entity-name comes into existence does not mean the person should be deprived of his site. There has been no planned extortion. Should entity-name offer the individual money to get that domain-name, so be it.
5. IF entity-name already owns a domain-name (entity-name.com) AND an individual creates a site with a similar domain-name (i.e., entity_name.com), AND that individual's end intent is to extract money from entity-name for entity_name.com, THEN that is cybersquatting. However, entity-name hasn't as strong a claim to have the domain-name taken away. Entity-name already has the best domain name possible (as they themselves have affirmed by registering that as their domain-name). They have no real need obtain entity_name.com when they already have entity-name.com.
6. IF entity-name already has a domain-name (entity-name.com) AND an individual creates a similar domain-name (i.e., entity_name.com or anti-entity-name.com), AND uses that domain name either to offer useful information about entity-name from a member/customer's pov, or to criticize entity-name, THEN that is not cybersquatting. Entity-name has no claim to take away that domain-name.
7. Dormancy time limit. I believe that all "intellectual property" -- if we are to have such a draconian thing -- should last a maximum of five years. Thus, for non-users of a domain-name, the domain-name is automatically relinquished from their control after 5 years if they do nothing with it. "Nothing" is a very high standard. If an individual uses the domain name for nothing other than saying, "I like blah blah blah blah blah", then that is NOT nothing. Nothing means either no page has been put there, or its just been a "for sale" sign for 5 years, or its just been an "under construction" sign for 5 years.
8. Assumption of innocence. The party brining the complaint must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other has done what is alleged.
9. The power tilt modifier. Naturally, in resolving disputes, the balance should be tilted towards the side of the less powerful, as the less powerful is more likely to be the innocent side in any given case, and the side less able to defend itself. If the less powerful is the person bearing the complaints, then its tilted towards them. If the less powerful is the person brining the complaint, then its tilted towards them. This does not overturn rule #8, but only modifies it slightly.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Trademarks can be registered on either the "principal" or the "supplemental" register. Trademarks on the principal register can be enforced against others. Trademarks on the supplemental register can't be enforced against others, but prevent others from claiming you are infringing their trademark. If your application for registration on the principal register is rejected, you can often get a registration on the supplementary register, for which the standards are lower. In particular, you can usually get a supplementary register trademark on a commonly used word, which is valuable for domain purposes.
Either way, you get to use the ® symbol, and you're protected against any trademark-related claims on a domain.
I could say a single Pentium IV chip costs less than 1 cent based on marginal cost (as in it cost Intel $1 billion to make 20,000,000 P-IVs, and $1,000,000,000.01 to make 20,000,001 P-IVs.)
I worked at one of Ford Motor Company's top-earning manufacturing plants in 1997, and the numbers that I saw indicated that they were earning about $5,000 on a $30,000 vehicle ... *before* things like warranty costs were taken into account.
So, instead of 90% profit 10% cost, the real numbers are more like 10% profit, 90% cost. There was a time when you could earn more money by keeping your money in the bank ...
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
You're using a very old-school view of the domain system.
See this (old) story: Internet Labels Lose Meaning in Rush for Popular Addresses.
You just can't buy bad press as good as filing a frivolous suit against a little guy. I know the LAST place I'll ever go for any 'legacy services'. Gee, Unicom, thanks for letting me know your are unscrupulous low life's.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
;-)
Because of they way the Internet is being mismanaged, conflict is impossible to avoid.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega 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 U.S. alone.
The solution to exclusively identify all trademark domains was always self-evident.
It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
I truly believe that the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce hide it for reasons of money and power - that they are corrupt.
They wish to abridge peoples right to use these words - they violate the First Amendment.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org
The thing is, UNICOM could decide to appeal the jurisdiction decision to the California Court of Appeals (whatever it's called), where they might win or lose depending upon various issues. Either way, what the judge has put on record is on record, and the appeals court will see it as part of the process of deciding whether to overrule the trial judge or not. The trial judge basically is telling the California Court of Appeals "hey, those UNICOM slobs have no case, just go along with me right?", though as a legal professional he cannot of course come right out and say that. This makes it unlikely that the case will be appealed in California -- UNICOM's staff lawyers can see the writing on the wall just as well as anybody else.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
This case was dismissed because the defendant A) wasn't in california and B) didn't talk to californians, as far as I can see.
Did the kid who wrote DeCSS in another country have any contact with California? (Which is where I thought the DeCSS case was litigated...)
Is there a way that they can use this ruling?
Whoops! The report I received was incorrect. As it turns out, Tim Jyre, a Portland, Orgeon AA case worker was found living. These things get a little backwards from time to time. Sorry for the confusion sir!
i still consider munging disgusting
Although marginally more expensive in legal terms, it would appear that the door is still open to an attack in Texas. What they are missing, is the cost in goodwill from the community. Write them at sales@unicomsi.com (or the email address of your choice, but good luck finding one on their site), and help them understand what it would mean to their sales and employment to be a pariah.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. [H.S.T.]
I'm happy for Chip Rosenthal, but it seems to me that this decision is only a temporary victory, based on fairly narrow grounds (lack of jurisdiction). The merits of the case (or lack thereof) were apparently not considered yet.
Unicom Systems may decide to re-file their case in Texas, and as little as I wish a continued lawsuit on Mr. Rosenthal, for them to re-file and lose decisively would establish a far more useful precedent than this dismissal does.
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with cybersquatting, espesialy now. If you own a company now and you don't have the intelligence to go get your domain registered then you deserve to pay money for the name. The fact is, I paid for that domain name, the rights to it belong to me as long as I continue to pay for it. Just as when I buy a product I have the rights to that particular item. I can sell it at whatever price someone is willing to pay for it.
.org or .net sites technicaly, it just would be less obvious, but like I said, if your too slow, it's too bad.
What really bugs me though are companies that take domains from other people because it's www.companysucks.com. Again, if the company wasn't bright enough to buy that site before hand, they deserve to pay whatever the other person wants for that domain. Remember, no one FORCES the company to pay outrages prices for a domain name, the company decides that that is what the doamin is worth to them. There is a reason before the release of a new product (i.e. iPod) Apple buys the domain, so that no one else gets to it first. Likewise, if I ever start my computer repair business (Orbit Computer Repair) I will register the domain before I star teh actual business. Of course there are many variations on that name that I could use, and let's not forget I could still use
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I think that some domain names should belong to the public, and be usable only for the obvious public use that they should be used for.
For example, did you know that www.aristotle.com belongs to some obscure company, Aristotle International? What the sites about, what the company sells, who knows. The point is, that a site with the name of one of the greatest philosophers of all time isn't devoted to him.
To me, that's outrageous.
Sites with the names of such influencial people in our history, or historic names, or something in them which belongs to us all, should be in the public domain. Namely, they should be devoted to this commons, in the public domain.
How to make a good use of those sites in the commons, I'm not sure of. Perhaps a government-funded reference list of all relevant information, books, etc. For example, aristotle.* would have a listing of hyperlinks to all the books written by Aristotle, as well as his biography, and links to other sites about him.
Other such domain-names which I think should be in the commons include:
www.plato.*
www.einstein.*
www.hobbes.*
www.orwell.*
www.nuremburg.*
www.socrates.*
www.bohrniels.*
www.rutherford.*
www.usconstitution.*
etc.
You get the point.
The idea that some companies get to profit off names which belong in the commons, the public domain, which belongs to us all, is outrageous.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
What do I need to do or put on my domain
website to protect my rights if any company
ever comes my way and serves me with one of
these bullshit suits?
Chip, anyone? What are some key things
that would make my ownership ironclad?
THAT would've shown it's a Texas based company..
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Firstly let me say well done chip I hope you get to keep your domain.
Am I the only one who has had enough of technologically-illiterate companies whining about I.T. If a company wants a web presence and a domain name it should damn well register it early, like 8 years ago. Why don't these idiots just use unicom-corp.com or stick with the name they have. Its their own fault for not registering the name as early as possible, since they didn't its their tuff shit!!
jesus get a fucking grip, if you cannot handle the tech market don't whine when it doesn't adapt for your company, instead adapt your company to it....