Précis #2

Domain Name Disputes.

In the first article by Ivan Hoffman, the term "bad faith" is introduced. Ivan tells the readers that ICANN uses the term "bad faith" when any of these four things happen:

1. when a domain is purchased for the purpose of selling, renting, or transferring it to a party who owns a registered trademark or to a trademark's competitor.

2. when a domain is registered to prevent the owner of a registered trademark from protecting that trademark.

3. using a domain name for disrupting a competitors business.

4. purposely trying to draw visitors to the web site of the domain by creating confusion between the domain and the trademark.

In Ivan then tell us that bad faith is very crucial when it comes to each claim. Also, the owner of the domain has the right to fight back against any accusations of bad faith.

The next section deals with how claims are presented. First the trademark can file a civil action seeking injunctive relief; this stops the domain from use. Second, the dispute is heard by authorized arbitration bodies After this has happened, the claim would go "on hold." This changed in 2000 so now the domain will be cancelled but only after its received a written authorization from the domain name owner, and order fro the court, and a decision by the ICANN panel.

The update to this article talks about the use of celebrities names in domains. The first case is "juliaroberts.com." The article talks about the issues the UDRP had to face. They were:

1. is the domain identical to the actress's name?

2. did the actress have the rights for this domain?

3. does the domain owner have any legit rights to this domain?

4. is the domain being used in "bad faith?"

Obviously, JULIAROBERTS.com was spelled out right. She did not have trademark rights for her name, but "secondary rights." When it all boiled down, the council concluded that she did have trademark rights to her name. Also, they concluded that the domain was obtained in bad faith and they ordered the domain transferred to her. The Jimi Hendrix case was very similar.

The second article is about a case in VA. A man named Jerry Falwell wants to own the domains containing his name as the current owner is using them for some ridiculous political postings. The court then ruled that they did not have jurisdiction on the this case because it does not address a VA audience (where Jerry Falwell is from). It addresses a national audience.

I suppose I agree with the final decision made but it surely is unfortunate on Jerry Falwell's case that his name can represented in such a way he does not agree with. However, it is JUST a website, and most people know that if they type in "theirname.com" something that has nothing to do with them will come up. So personally, I think Jerry is wasting a lot of time and money.