Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Cybersquatting Law Goes Global
typecast writes: "Better bone up on Bulgarian trademark law before you register your next domain name. A U.S. federal court has ruled that laws protecting trademarks in foreign countries apply under the American Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. (Note to the U.S. registrants of Quartz.com: watch out!)"
It is an EU country, so it's less surprising. While I don't like the laws, we have been making a lot of laws and treaties with other countries, and the EU in paticular that are designed to protect US patents, copyrights and trademarks. Overall, its the result of Microsoft and the others trying to inflict their copyright laws, EULA's and such on the global market, only to have the global laws come back home to us. As a side note, IANAL, but I believe British copyright and trademark claims have always been recognized in the United States, and this is basically an extension to other countries. I think the base law is flawed, as are the laws that allow big corporations to take away valid websites from individuals or small companies, but the extension into the greater world doesn't seem that surprising to me.
Translation: You can be a company afraid of the Internet and be slow to adjust to market market pressures. When you finally open your eyes and see that others have taken advantage of your lethargy in hopes of monetary gain, you need not fret -- just taken them to court.
So if I invent a new medium I should be able to own the reprensentation of Pepsi?
That's what we are talking about. By registering say "pepsi.com" before the Pepsi company does your infringing on their right to the trademark and proper representation.
Note that I am totally against disallowing registrations like "pepsisucks.com", etc. Just the name itself should be the property of the inventor. Otherwise each time a new medium is invented they could lose represenation.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I support the rights of corporations to protect their intellectual property, including rights to domain names containing trademarks. However, I don't think they should retain the right to those domains if they don't pursue them within a certain period. How did this retroactive ownership come about, when it doesn't exist anywhere else that I'm aware of in IP law? If company A produces a product called "tradenameA" but doesn't actually go forward with the process to own that trademark, in everything other than domain names they are just out of luck. If company B decides to trademark "tradenameA", company A doesn't get to sue to demand that it be given up, especially not years later. All company A gets to do is seethe.
Why can companies with established trademarks wait for years and years without registering a domain - which they were free to do at any time until someone else grabbed it - and then successfully sue to get the domain only after a third party got the ignored name? I'd give a company six months to a year after registering the trademark to have first option on all unused domains with that trademark, but after that their inaction would leave affected domains forever out of their legal grasp. Throw in a similar grandfather period for every other company starting from a fixed date, to cover all old trademarks that haven't yet been pursued. Past that date, their rights to that name are the same as anyone else, first-come first-served.
Especially now that large corporations can be their own registrar, there is just no possible excuse for them not pre-emptively registering any possible desired, unused domain name. For ($30/month? IIRC), any company can register every possible variant of a trademark they like, from common spelling errors to "-sucks" &etc. But if they don't take action, they give up their rights to future action. Simple as that.
ps - anyone want to help the process along with a GPL home registrar solution? Just download, compile, pay your monthlies, and you're ready to register vanity domains for all of your friends, co-workers, pets, to your hearts content. I'm sure there are some other requirements, but I'd suspect a large number of ISPs and decent sized companies and non-profits would qualify.
-reemul
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Perhaps Barcelona (the city) would be better served with barcelona.sp, barcelona.city.sp, or barcelona.(spanish for city).sp., or perhaps even barcelona.gov (admittedly, most .gov addresses are referring to US-centric governmental entities). .com domains are (ostensibly) for commercial entities; hence, a travel portal would, in fact, be appropriate. In this case, the intended naming structure should (IMHO) be used as a guide.
The big problem with this approach is that most of the internet user base doesn't know about this naming structure. Most users think of .com as the only TLD, and append .com automatically; indeed, I have done so myself several times, knowing full well what I meant. Look at the popularity of www.whitehouse.com, www.nasa.com, and other such domains as evidence of this. The case for ruling in favor of the city of Barcelona is best made with an argument about the {customs, expectations, ignorance, stupidity} of the users.
Just my two cents.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Neither, thats what .UK and .US are for.
I think domain names should be simplified.
There would not be half the problems if the system was not being abused. What would be so bad about birmingham.al.us and birmingham.uk