--- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:39:31 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy <jamieat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Federal judge holds Bill Purdy in contempt, gives one more chance To: declanat_private, politechat_private declanat_private (Declan McCullagh) writes: > Again I say, if the Eighth Circuit doesn't overturn this > craziness, this nonsense, then all of we American Internet users, > the pro-lifers, the pro-choicers, the anti-war crowd, the > tree-huggers, everybody - we're in BIG, BIG, BIG trouble! This is three-year-old news. We've been in big trouble since WIPO said that "guinness-beer-really-really-sucks.com .com" was confusingly similar to the trademarked phrase "Guinness Beer". WIPO in that same decision went on to proclaim that even if the domain names were not "confusingly similar," they can still take away the domain. Why? Because you or I might Google on the trademarked phrase, happen to notice the *sucks domains, and, out of idle curiosity click on those sites instead of the company's. We are not users, you see; we are potential customers. So our curiosity is an official reason for taking away domain names and has been for three years: The fact that each of the said domain names in issue in these proceedings constitute an abusive, insulting or possibly even defamatory statement would in the view of this Administrative Panel be sufficient to alert most English speaking users of the Internet that the domain name is not the address of a www site associated with the Complainant. This was accepted by the administrative panel in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico WIPO case D2000-0477, in a similar case... In that case however the administrative panel went on to consider the next element of the Sleekcraft test and concluded that: "it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark." Please note that the Policy which WIPO is bound to follow says very explicitly that domain names must be "identical or confusingly similar." They just sling a lot of legalese to reverse the common understanding of those words. Another officially-stated reason for taking away domain names is that "Respondent admitted ... that he registered [them] because he was angered." According to WIPO, emotionalism is proof you are acting in bad faith. So I'm guessing Mr. Purdy doesn't have a chance. Does this make your readers mad? I advise them to exercise a five-day waiting period before protesting. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/31/1719237 http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0996.html http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 22:58:14 PST