FC: Michael Geist on domain names, trademarks, and flames on eBay

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 23:01:36 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Privacy-fretting federal judge won't let her photo to be taken"

    Michael also passes along this:
    
    EBAY SELLER SUIT OVER NEGATIVE FEEDBACK DISMISSED ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS
    A federal court in New Jersey has dismissed a defamation suit brought by an 
    in-state woman who sells coins on eBay against several out-of-state eBay 
    purchasers who posted negative feedback about the woman when sales did not 
    go according to expectations.   The woman claimed the feedback ruined her 
    eBay coin business but the judge ruled that there were insufficient ties 
    between the angry purchasers and New Jersey. Case name is Machulsky v. 
    Hall.  Decision at
    http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/ca01-4444-1.html
    
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:10:21 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: Michael Geist <mgeistat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: ICANN "At Large council" nomination deadline is over
    
    Declan,
    
    Of possible interest to your readers -- my regular Globe and Mail cyberlaw 
    column takes a closer look at last week's Ontario court Canadian.biz case 
    which was the first court case to reverse an  ICANN STOP decision.  It 
    argues that the judge's surprise with the current intersection between 
    domain name policy and trademark law is understandable since the policy 
    approach found in the UDRP extends monopoly-like rights to trademarks and 
    effectively grant trademark holders far more rights online than they enjoy 
    offline.
    
    MG
    
    <http://makeashorterlink.com/?V22C32951> [Globe and Mail]
    <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020725/TWGEIS>
    
      From globeandmail.com, Thursday, July 25, 2002
    
    Domain name policy absurd when it comes to trademarks
    
    MICHAEL GEIST
    
    Last week an Ontario court issued a landmark judgment involving the domain 
    name Canadian.biz. Effectively, it overruled a domain name dispute 
    resolution decision that had called for the transfer of the domain from the 
    original registrant to Molson Breweries. The court's decision does much 
    more than just reverse a plainly wrong initial outcome -- it provides one 
    of the clearest examples of the absurdity of a domain name policy that 
    grants trademark holders (such as, in this case, Molson) rights that extend 
    far beyond those traditionally associated with trademark law.
    
    Following years of debate, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
    Numbers decided in the fall of 2000 to establish seven new generic 
    top-level domains, including dot-biz and dot-info. When it became clear 
    that most of those new domains were to be allocated in either a random or 
    first-come, first-served basis, trademark interests expressed concern that 
    the new domains would provide fertile ground for a fresh round of 
    cybersquatting. Their fear was that speculators would snap up domain names 
    matching their trademarks and then demand sizable payments in return for 
    transferring the domain names.
    
    To alleviate those concerns, several approaches were adopted. For dot-biz 
    domains, the Start-Up Trademark Opposition Policy, or STOP, was instituted. 
    It allowed trademark holders to register an intellectual property claim in 
    a particular trademark before Neulevel, the dot-biz registrar, began 
    allowing registrations. The premise was simple: By registering an IP claim, 
    trademark holders were entitled to later seek the transfer of the domain 
    name if it was registered in bad faith.
    
    Douglas Black, a University of Toronto graduate, registered Canadian.biz 
    with plans to use the domain for an on-line business. Molson Breweries 
    holds a controversial trademark in the word Canadian in association with 
    beer and when Mr. Black refused to surrender the domain name, the brewery 
    launched a STOP action, having previously registered an IP claim.
    
    The STOP decision, which reads much like the dispute resolution cases 
    involving dot-com domains, was decided by Robert Merhige, a retired U.S. 
    judge who began practising law in Virginia in 1942. He determined that 
    Molson indeed had a trademark in the word Canadian and that Mr. Black has 
    no such rights in the name. He did not find Mr. Black's contention that he 
    intended to create a business site persuasive, ruling that this was a case 
    of bad faith and the domain name should be transferred to Molson.
    
    It is important to note that this decision is actually fairly typical. In 
    recent months, panelists have ordered the transfer of such generic-sounding 
    domains as airport.biz, brands.biz, huge.biz, monopoly.biz, paint.biz, 
    parents.biz, switchboard.biz, and taxman.biz. In fact, the Canadian.biz 
    case is not even the only dot-biz case with a Canadian connection. 
    Ottawa.biz was recently transferred to Kalmar Industries USA Inc., a Texas 
    company that owns a trademark in the word Ottawa in connection with truck 
    tractors. In its case, Kalmar Industries argued the fact that Ottawa is 
    also the capital of Canada was irrelevant and the presiding panelist agreed.
    
    What makes the Canadian.biz case unique is that Mr. Black decided to 
    challenge the decision in a Canadian court. Once there, the silliness of 
    these decisions was left behind, while the judge was left to wonder how 
    Molson, which had no stated plans for the domain, could assert that it was 
    solely deserving of owning the Canadian.biz domain when thousands of 
    businesses use the word Canadian in their names.
    
    In a direct challenge to domain name dispute resolution policy, the judge 
    concluded that "simply because a domain name is identical or similar to a 
    trademark name should not result in the transfer of the domain name to the 
    trademark owner. In my view, unless there is some evidence that the use of 
    the domain name infringes on the use of the trademark name, a person other 
    than the owner of the trademark should be able to continue to use the 
    domain name."
    
    Trademarks are important rights that enable holders to establish brand 
    awareness and loyalty while protecting consumers from marketplace 
    confusion. What they typically do not do, however, is grant trademark 
    holders a complete monopoly over the use of a word.
    
    In working through the panelist's bad-faith analysis in the Canadian.biz 
    case, the judge noted that if it were correct, the only person who could 
    register Canadian.biz without bad faith would be Molson, an approach that 
    would in fact grant the company a complete monopoly over the word Canadian 
    for all domain name purposes.
    
    While the judge ended that outcome in this case, the extension of 
    monopolistic rights in words to trademark holders is precisely what has 
    happened in hundreds of domain name cases. Trademark holders now commonly 
    argue that any domain name that includes their mark is likely to cause 
    confusion in the minds of consumers (never mind that few people seek out 
    Web sites by guessing the domain), was registered in bad faith (never mind 
    that domains such as vivendiuniversalsucks.com were to be used as criticism 
    sites yet were still regarded as bad-faith registrations), and should 
    therefore be transferred.
    
    In further stretching the boundaries of trademark law, recent domain name 
    decisions have even suggested that registrants have a positive obligation 
    to search for possible overlapping trademark registrations or even past 
    domain name dispute resolution cases involving the trademark holder.
    
    It is ironic that while global e-commerce legislation has been focused on 
    ensuring equality between on-line and off-line rules, domain name dispute 
    resolution policy has granted trademark holders far more rights on-line 
    than off-line and in the process effectively created a new super-trademark. 
    Perhaps this decision will begin to put a stop to policies that left 
    traditional trademark norms behind long ago.
    
    Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa Law School and 
    director of e-commerce law at the law firm Goodmans LLP. His Web site is 
    http://www.lawbytes.com.
    
    
    -- 
    **********************************************************************
    Professor Michael A. Geist
    University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
    57 Louis Pasteur St., P.O. Box 450, Stn. A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
    Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
    mgeistat_private              http://www.lawbytes.ca
    
    BNA's Internet Law News - http://www.bna.com/ilaw
    G & M Cyberlaw column - http://www.globetechnology.com
    Internet Law Text - http://www.captus.com/Information/inetlaw-flyer.htm
    Canadian Internet Law Resource Page (CILRP) at: http://www.cilrp.org/
    ICANN UDRP Info at http://www.udrpinfo.com
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 02:49:38 PDT