Another shining example of the trademark-owner dominated world we live in. I feel the need to correct some very signficant errors the original poster made and the erroneous conclusions he arrived at as a result: > Good rules have been written to prevent things like this from > happening. Unfortunately, the rules have not taken effect yet for most > domains. Even after they do take effect, their legal status will be > uncertain until they are tested in court. > > Those rules are ICANN's [12]Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. > This policy ensures that the conditions under which a domain name can > be disputed are strictly limited. For such a dispute even to proceed, > a complainant must assert that each of three things is true: Good rules have in fact *not* been written. Horrible rules have been written, as I will explain. If you think the etoy.com folks would have fared better under them, you are very, very mistaken. The resolution policy you cite was developed largely by representatives of trademark and/or big business interest with the intent of taking any domain in which they have the same string of characters trademarked quickly and inexpensively. It is important to know that trademarks are granted to organizations for use within a specific category of business. As such, a company may only claim rights to use that mark in that category of business. The resolution policy you cite attempts to offer trademark owners superior rights over non-trademark owners, rights which they do not have under the law, detailed below. Under the policies you are automatically forced into mandatory arbitration by the mere complaint of a trademark holder. The trademark owner need not show any basis whatsoever for their claim, or any evidence as to how you are violating their rights. Their are no penalties for abusing thability whatsoever. If you wish to avoid forced arbitration, you have a mere *10* days in which to file suit. The dispute policies require *you* to prove that you have a "legitimate interest" in the domain in are using it in " good faith." The dispute policies allow for the confiscation of a domain if you register it to prevent a trademark owner from using it. Doing so in no way constitues any sort of infringement. The dispute policies allow for the confiscation of a domain name if it is found that you are intentionally tarnishing the trademark(section 4(c)iii). Ever heard of the free-speech protection of *parody* guaranteed by the First Amendment? Why don't we take a look at the claim that ETOYS.COM made? "the antisocial, obscene, and offensive images associated with is defendants' use of the mark 'etoy,' both on the Internet and elsewhere, have tarnished the ETOYS mark and the eToys brand name..." There's that pesky "tarnish" word explicitly mentioned in the dispute policy. eTOY would have LOST their domain name without the benefit of a decison of a court of competent jurisdiction. I understand that you are well-intentioned, but the next time you consider offering *ANYTHING* produced by ICANN as a shining example of fairness and protection of domain name holders, please make damn sure to read all the documents in their entirety, and carefully consider their source. As a long-time observer and participant in that arena, it has become exceedingly clear that ICANN is a complete and utter sham, and the offering misinterpretations of its documents and actions only result in furthering the lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Another shining example of the trademark-owner dominated world we live in. I feel the need to correct some very signficant errors the original poster made and the erroneous conclusions he arrived at as a result: > Good rules have been written to prevent things like this from > happening. Unfortunately, the rules have not taken effect yet for most > domains. Even after they do take effect, their legal status will be > uncertain until they are tested in court. > > Those rules are ICANN's [12]Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. > This policy ensures that the conditions under which a domain name can > be disputed are strictly limited. For such a dispute even to proceed, > a complainant must assert that each of three things is true: Good rules have in fact *not* been written. Horrible rules have been written, as I will explain. If you think the etoy.com folks would have fared better under them, you are very, very mistaken. The resolution policy you cite was developed largely by representatives of trademark and/or big business interest with the intent of taking any domain in which they have the same string of characters trademarked quickly and inexpensively. It is important to know that trademarks are granted to organizations for use within a specific category of business. As such, a company may only claim rights to use that mark in that category of business. The resolution policy you cite attempts to offer trademark owners superior rights over non-trademark owners, rights which they do not have under the law, detailed below. Under the policies you are automatically forced into mandatory arbitration by the mere complaint of a trademark holder. The trademark owner need not show any basis whatsoever for their claim, or any evidence as to how you are violating their rights. Their are no penalties for abusing thability whatsoever. If you wish to avoid forced arbitration, you have a mere *10* days in which to file suit. The dispute policies require *you* to prove that you have a "legitimate interest" in the domain in are using it in " good faith." The dispute policies allow for the confiscation of a domain if you register it to prevent a trademark owner from using it. Doing so in no way constitues any sort of infringement. The dispute policies allow for the confiscation of a domain name if it is found that you are intentionally tarnishing the trademark(section 4(c)iii). Ever heard of the free-speech protection of *parody* guaranteed by the First Amendment? Why don't we take a look at the claim that ETOYS.COM made? "the antisocial, obscene, and offensive images associated with is defendants' use of the mark 'etoy,' both on the Internet and elsewhere, have tarnished the ETOYS mark and the eToys brand name..." There's that pesky "tarnish" word explicitly mentioned in the dispute policy. eTOY would have LOST their domain name without the benefit of a decison of a court of competent jurisdiction. I understand that you are well-intentioned, but the next time you consider offering *ANYTHING* produced by ICANN as a shining example of fairness and protection of domain name holders, please make damn sure to read all the documents in their entirety, and carefully consider their source. As a long-time observer and participant in that arena, it has become exceedingly clear that ICANN is a complete and utter sham, and the offering misinterpretations of its documents and actions only result in furthering the lie.