The Educational CyberPlayGround Educational CyberPlayGround

 

DOMAIN NAMES

Planning to buy a Domain Name?
You Better Have an Exit Plan for when you no longer want the domain!


Dead Ed Dots Need To Be Buried With Dignity An Educators Professional Responsibility to make sure their web site doesn't end up as Porn. [See CyberSquatting]

HISTORY OF DOMAIN NAMES
John Postal, Internet Assigned numbers IANA and ICANN.

Who Controls Domain Names?

IP NETWORK INDEX - An index relating IP network numbers to network names and identities, for
CLASS A (0.x.x.x to 127.x.x.x)
CLASS B (128.0.x.x to 191.255.x.x)
CLASS C (192.0.0.x to 223.255.255.x) networks

See: DIHE IP INDEX Dynamic Network Services, Inc. and E-Mule Project Net

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES & RESOLUTION PROVIDERS

Who Owns That Website Domain Name?

Internet domains are uncharted territory in terms of property rights; they can be bought and sold like cars, but are also places where people meet to discuss issues, raising First Amendment and privacy concerns. The author states that though the Justice Department has placed notice of the seizures on the websites, it could also choose to use the site to conduct sting operations. In the 1992 Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. U.S., the justices ruled that police may set traps for people who are already "independently predisposed to commit the crime." http://rss.com.com/2010-1071-990697.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=new

 



NEW LAW WOULD CRIMINALIZE FALSE WHOIS INFO
Report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2005 indicates that as many as 2.3 million Web addresses are owned by individuals or organizations that cannot be identified due to bad data in the WHOIS database for .com, .net, and .org domains. The report said
that 5 percent of all addresses have incomplete or inaccurate information about the owner, in effect creating a safe haven for operators of Web-based scams, such as phishing attacks or the distribution of spam and viruses. When authorities try to track down those responsible for such malicious activities, they rely on the WHOIS database to find out who operates suspect domains. When the information in WHOIS is wrong, authorities hit a dead end. The Federal Trade Commission has been urging a clean-up of the database for a long time, but progress has been slow. Data are typically entered into the database through domain registrars, which bear some responsibility for
ensuring the integrity of the information, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Despite an ICANN policy requiring registrars to remind domain owners to update their information regularly, a system that tracks reports of complaints,however, indicates that only about 60 percent of problems are resolved.

Indian Tribes Gain Special Domain Name Suffix 04/29/02
Government Computer News reports that "Federally recognized American Indian tribes will gain a special domain name suffix identifying them as government entities under a cooperative agreement announced by the Interior Department and the General Services Administration. GSA grants the .gov domain name to federal agencies, and Interior, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs, handles relations with the sovereign tribes. According to the announcement on Friday [April 26], a tribe's domain name will include a hyphen, the letters nsn - for native sovereign nation - and the .gov designation. The tribes' sites now follow their names with .nsn.us... Interior said the special designation for the tribes is a step toward providing information about American Indian programs and agencies, as well as transactional functions, via the Internet."

Cybersquatting

From ICANN's UDRP info page
The registrar of the name (not to be confused with the registrant) will be bound by the decision of the UDRP.
[... To invoke the policy, a trademark owner should either (a) file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder (or where appropriate an in-rem action concerning the domain name) or (b) in cases of abusive registration submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider]

"Abusive registration" refers to cybersquatting...
Word to the wise, fighting through the UDRP process may be more expensive than your domain name is worth.
[...
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;
or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.


From: Paul Levy
Date: August 24, 2005
I want to call your attention to a very important Internet free  speech decision, perhaps the most significant of our domain name  cases from the past several years.  In Lamparello v. Falwell, the  United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held today that  the use of the domain name www.fallwell.com for a web site devoted to  denouncing the views of Rev. Jerry Falwell about homosexuality  neither infringes Falwell's trademark in his name nor constitutes  "cybersquatting."  The court chose not to address the issue of  whether the non-commercial character our client's web site was 
sufficient to excuse it from the coverage of the trademark laws,  because it was so clear that his web site did not create any  likelihood of confusion about whether Falwell sponsored it.  The  court ruled that, where the web site is clear about being adverse to  the interests of the trademark holder, the fact that the domain name  for the web site resembles the trademark is not a reason to find  infringement, because the domain name must be considered in the  context of the web site.
The decision is important for two other reasons.  First, it is a  decision by the same court that ruled against the web site operator  in the "People Eating Tasty Animals" case, PETA v Doughney.  There,  the operator of a web site at www.peta.org (now accessible at  www.mtd.com/tasty)  was found guilty of both infringement and cybersquatting.  It has always been my feeling that the case turned  on the fact that Doughney was plainly trying to hit PETA up for a  payment for the domain name, but the case has been widely if  incorrectly cited in briefs as standing for the proposition that a  domain name in the form www.trademark.com was impermissible for a 
gripe site.  That the same court that issued PETA has now made clear  this construction of its opinion was erroneous - and Judge Michael, a  member of the panel in Falwell, was also one of the judges in PETA -  could well signal the end of the line for lawsuits of this kind.
Second, this opinion contains some welcome skepticism about the  doctrine of "initial interest confusion," a trademark law analysis  that some courts have deployed rather carelessly over the past  several years to find trademark infringement even though there was no 
consumer confusion about whether a product or service was sponsored  by a trademark holder.  Trademark law has always protected against  only a substantial likelihood of confusion by the reasonable  consumer, and not against "temporary confusion" or confusion caused  wholly by consumer carelessness.  In some of the early Internet  infringement cases, there was some tendency to "baby" consumers by  assuming that Internet users are stupid and that domain names can  easily mislead them way from the web sites of trademark holders.  By  holding that "initial interest confusion" is not present here, in  part because of flaws in the doctrine and in part because it does not  apply to non-commercial criticism anyway, the court has written a  decision that may play an important role in the development of  trademark law apart from the issue of domain names and the Internet.
The opinion is available on the our web site
It will be posted on the Fourth Circuit's web site later today.
Our local counsel in the case was Ray Battocchi. of McLean,  Virginia.  We are also grateful to Richard Ravin, a New Jersey lawyer  who was of counsel in the district court, to Rebecca Tushnet, Phil  Malone and Bruce Keller who led the preparation of an amicus brief  for a group of twelve law professors in the intellectual property  field, and to Rebecca Glenberg who wrote a separate amicus brief for  the ACLU and the ACLU-Virginia.
Here is our press statement:
PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE
Aug. 24, 2005
For Immediate Release: Contact:
Valerie Collins (202) 588-7742
Paul Levy (202) 588-1000

Rev. Jerry Falwell Loses Bid to Shut Down Disapproving Web Site
Falwell Sued New York Man to Shut Down Web Site
Criticizing Stance on Homosexuality
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a victory for free speech on the Internet, a  New York man ordered to transfer the domain name www.fallwell.com to  the Rev. Jerry Falwell will be allowed to keep the Web site, the  United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled.
Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy represented the New York man,  Christopher Lamparello. Lamparello runs a Web site that criticizes  Falwell's views on homosexuality. Falwell sought to transfer the  domain name, and after a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution  Policy panel ruled in Falwell's favor, Lamparello sued in federal court in Virginia to keep his domain name. Noting that for a period  of time, Lamparello's Web site had praised a book and linked to 
Amazon.com where the book could be bought, a trial judge decided that  the site was sufficiently commercial to be subject to the trademark  laws and ruled in Falwell's favor. Lamparello appealed the decision,  and the case was argued in front of the United States Court of  Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in May.
Public Citizen, which has been a strong defender of First Amendment  rights on the Internet, argued that Lamparello's speech is  indisputably protected and not applicable to trademark laws because  the site features noncommercial speech. Levy also asserted that the  District Court's opinion should have been reversed because viewers of  the Web site were unlikely to be confused about whether Falwell  sponsors the Lamparello Web site.
"Lamparello's website looks nothing like Reverend Falwell's," the  court ruled today. "Lamparello clearly created his website intending  only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers."
"This is a victory for First Amendment rights on the Internet," said  Levy. "We are pleased that the court agreed that Mr. Lamparello has a  right to use Falwell's name when criticizing him, and has every right  to do so on the Internet."
The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties  Union of Virginia and Intellectual Property Law Faculty defended  Lamparello's Web site with "friend of the court" briefs. Local  counsel was Ray Battocchi of McLean, Va. The court's decision is  available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/LamparellovFalwellFourthCircuitDecision.pdf.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy 
organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please  visit www.citizen.org.

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

About Us | Privacy Policy | | ©1997 Educational CyberPlayGround, All rights reserved world wide.