|
|
Your Source for Domain Dispute
News and Information |
February 14, 2008,
Vol. 9 No. 02 |
Welcome to Domain News, a complimentary
news service of the National Arbitration Forum. The National
Arbitration Forum is one of the
world's largest neutral administrators of arbitration services and one
of three ICANN-approved providers. We invite you to visit our website
at
www.adrforum.com.
The
National
Arbitration Forum
invites you to
subscribe directly to Domain News. If you have been forwarded this
issue, and wish to receive a clean copy with active links, please send your
contact information and e-mail address to
domain-news@adrforum.com.
Type "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject header, and you will be added to our growing
list of recipients.
In
This Issue
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Extraordinary Things LLC
Blackheart Records Group, Inc. v. Sacred Dogs Entertainment
Domain Name Front Running at the Forefront
MySpace Wins Domain Name Fight
Recent
Decisions
Target Brands, Inc. v. RareNames, WebReg
Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., brought a UDRP claim
against Respondent for ownership of the <targetcard.com> and <targetpromotion.com>
domain names. Respondent contended that both domain names were comprised of
common terms and that its business policy was to only maintain domain names
that incorporate common words or phrases in which no single party has
exclusive rights. The three-member Panel concluded that, although the
disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant's TARGET mark,
the terms were not exclusively associated with Complainant. Thus, the Panel
concluded that Respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain and denied Complainant's request for the <targetcard.com>
and <targetpromotion.com> domain names.
Target Brands, Inc. v. RareNames, WebReg, FA 1109401 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 22, 2008).
Lockheed Martin
Corporation v. Extraordinary Things LLC
Complainant, Lockheed Martin Corporation, challenged
Respondent's use of the <lockheedventure.com>, <lockheedventures.com>,
and <lockheedventurecaptial.com> domain names in a UDRP claim.
Respondent alleged that Complainant's failure to register the LOCKHEED marks
specifically for financial and venture capital services with the USPTO
allowed Respondent to use the term for those purposes. Complainant asserted
that it had established common law rights for those purposes, and that under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the mark does not need to be registered for a specific
purpose to establish rights. The Panel found Respondent's argument
unpersuasive, and thus ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names
based on Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests, failure to
use the disputed domain names for a legitimate purpose, and offer to sell
the disputed domain names to Complainant.
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Extraordinary Things LLC, FA 1117826 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2008).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Dynamic Ventures
Complainant brought a UDRP claim against Respondent for
use of the <amazondeveloper.org> domain name. Respondent asserted
that there was no likelihood of confusion between Complainant's AMAZON mark
and the disputed domain name because Respondent's website had a different
color scheme, font, and layout from Complainant's own website. The Panel
rejected this argument and concluded that Respondent was using the goodwill
associated with the AMAZON mark for its own benefit and because Respondent
was offering software development services beyond those provided in
connection with Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the
transfer of the <amazondeveloper.org> domain name from Respondent to
Complainant.
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Dynamic Ventures, FA 1112201 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 25, 2008).
Blackheart
Records Group, Inc. v. Sacred Dogs Entertainment
Complainant brought a UDRP claim against Respondent for
the <therunaways.net> domain name. Respondent is a former member of
the now-defunct musical group "The Runaways" and registered the disputed
domain name to promote a documentary film about the group. The Panel found
Respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the <therunaways.net>
domain name because it registered the domain name before Complainant's THE
RUNAWAYS federal trademark was issued, and the marketing of the documentary
film appeared to be a bona fide offering of goods or services. For
the same reasons, the Panel found that Respondent did not register and use
the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel declined to
transfer the <therunaways.net> domain name to Complainant.
Blackheart Records Group, Inc. v. Sacred Dogs Entmt. , FA 1115098
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008).
AOL LLC v. Gillenkirk
Complainant brought a UDRP claim against Respondent for
multiple domain names incorporating Complainant's registered SHOUTCAST mark.
Complainant uses the SHOUTCAST mark to market audio streaming computer
software. Respondent was using the disputed domain names to market competing
audio services and had offered to sell them to Complainant. The Panel first
found that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to
Complainant's SHOUTCAST mark. In addition, the Panel found that Respondent
did not have rights or legitimate interests because Respondent was not
commonly known by the disputed domain names and only utilized them to market
services that directly compete with Complainant. Along with this, the Panel
found that Respondent's unsolicited offer to sell the disputed domain names
indicated Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). Therefore, the Panel transferred the disputed domain names from
Respondent to Complainant.
AOL LLC v. Gillenkirk, FA 1110120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 14, 2008).
Johnstone Smith v. Leopard Spot
Complainant brought a UDRP claim against Respondent for
the <williamwjohnstone.net> and <williamwjohnstone.org> domain
names. Complainant originally hired Respondent to register and secure the
disputed domain names in Complainant's name. Instead, Respondent registered
them in its own name and refused to transfer them, arguing that the issue
was outside of the scope of the UDRP because it involved a contractual
dispute. The Panel found that the case was within the scope of the UDRP
because Respondent was never authorized to register the disputed domain
names in a name other than Complainant's. The Panel then found that
Complainant had established the requisite Policy requirements. Therefore,
the Panel transferred the <williamwjohnstone.net> and <williamwjohnstone.org>
domain names from Respondent to Complainant.
Johnstone Smith v. Leopard Spot, FA 1114747 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
15, 2008).
E-PRACTICE
Domain Name Front
Running at the Forefront
Domain name
front running has been a very hot topic over the last few months. The
November 2007 volume of Domain News first reported on ICANN's
investigation of front running, whereby domain name search queries are
tracked and the most sought-after domain names are opportunistically
registered by others before the searching individual has a chance to do so.
In effect, the front runners block searching individuals from registering
their preferred domain names and then attempt to induce these searching
individuals to pay an amount greater than the costs of registering in
exchange for transferring the domain names.
The ICANN
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) considers this
procedure threatening to the open availability and marketability of domain
names and in October issued an
advisory warning alerting Internet users of this practice.
To address this concern, Network Solutions, one of the
leading domain name registrars, added a
customer protection measure in which it reserves domain names searched
for on its website for a period of four days to prevent others from
opportunistically registering these domain names. However, ICANN and others
in the industry
characterize the protection measure itself as front running, and claim
that Network Solutions is attempting to monopolize the market by forcing
customers to purchase these reserved domain names exclusively through
Network Solutions at prices set higher than market value. Jonathon Nevett,
Vice President of Policy at Network Solutions,
responded by stating that this measure was intended to curb domain
tasters, who register domain names during a five-day grace period based upon
their expected popularity and thus constitute the largest segment of front
runners. Nevett also indicated that the measure is meant to give Internet
users assurances that they will be able to register their preferred domain
names after searching for their availability.
Some industry analysts
considered Network Solutions' practice to be fraudulent, and may even
constitute theft. In addition,
according to ICANN executives, Network Solutions initially admitted
that its procedures were not in compliance with the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). However, Network Solutions has
since amended its measure to
ensure legality and compliance.
Nevertheless, at a January 23, 2008 meeting, ICANN's
Board of Directors passed resolutions aimed at preventing domain name front
running by Network Solutions or any other entity, as well as preventing
domain tasting in general. (See Items 5 and 6 in
ICANN's meeting minutes.) Specifically, ICANN is
considering eliminating the five-day grace period (commonly referred to
as the "Add Grace Period," or AGP) by imposing its standard annual fees for
registering a domain name for any period of time. If this proposal is
passed, Network Solutions will
cease implementing its customer protection measure, according to Susan
Wade, a spokeswoman for the company.
ICANN will continue to discuss, and potentially vote,
on whether to implement this change to the RAA at upcoming meetings. In the
mean time, registrars will continue to try and find ways to curtail domain
name front running, tasting, and other improper procedures.
In
The News
ICANN Pleads for Freedom from Government Control
Domainnews.com, January 28, 2008: According to a report
prepared by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"),
the United States government has been asked by ICANN to free the
organization from the government's control. The report was sent the
Department of Commerce and outlined how ICANN had met the objectives placed
down by the U.S. government, which ICANN had to meet in order to become
independent. One of these objectives, which ICANN claims to have achieved,
was to "put in place a means of being accountable to parties with an
interest in the internet, including other governments." However,
contradicting the report, Dr. Milton Mueller stated: "Compared with other
international organizations ICANN is very transparent, but at times it still
feels a bit more like a private club, with not enough checks and balances."
Link to Full Story
Charging $ .20 to Stop Domain Tasters
Washingtonpost.com, January 30, 2008: ICANN is
considering keeping the annual $ .20 fee it charges for a domain name,
whether or not the registering party decides to keep the domain name after
the 5-day trial period. The move is intended to stop "domain tasters" from
purchasing a large number of domain names in order to see which ones incur
the most amount of traffic. While the grace period was originally intended
to give people a refund if they misspell their domain name, the problem of
"domain tasting" has begun to reach dangerous levels. In an ICANN report,
during January 2005, 1.7 million domain names were registered and 41% were
deleted during the grace period. In January of 2007, 51 million domain names
were registered and 94% were deleted. The fee proposal will be contained
within ICANN's 2009 fiscal budget which will be discussed in Paris in June.
In order to pass, the proposal must be approved by registrars that comprise
two-thirds of the revenues received by ICANN.
Link to Full Story
MySpace Wins Domain Name
Fight
Guardian.co.uk, January 31, 2008: British domain
registry Nominet's dispute resolution service recently made a controversial
decision. Independent arbitrator Antony Gold ruled that ownership of the <myspace.co.uk>
domain name be transferred to MySpace, the popular social networking site.
Many found the decision surprising, as the domain name was originally
registered in 1997, six years before MySpace launched, by Total Web
Solutions of Stockport. While the <myspace.co.uk> domain name was originally
registered to offer e-mail services and mini-websites, Gold found that the
site was now being used to display ads in competition with MySpace and thus
exploited the popularity of MySpace. Total Web Solutions argued that it did
not control the specific ads displayed on its website, as they were
determined by algorithms based on search terms. However, Gold found this to
be irrelevant, as a domain name owner is ultimately responsible for the
content of his or her website. According to Jonathon Robinson, COO at the
web services company NetNames: "It is amazing how, after so
many years, domain disputes still cause such unpredictable outcomes and
associated controversy. . . It also highlights how automated web content of
any sort can get people into real difficulties."
Link to Full Story
GoDaddy gives back after a successful year
Hostingtech.com January 2, 2008: Web-hosting domain
registrar GoDaddy had a very successful year, and it is sharing the wealth.
The company, located in Scottsdale, Arizona, gave $1.4 million to a variety
of causes and charities including juvenile diabetes, unwed mothers, blind
children, and animal shelters. GoDaddy has been very generous in the past as
well. Through its CEO and Founder Bob Parsons, GoDaddy made a $200,000
donation to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International last
September. GoDaddy also rewarded its employees for the successful year. Over
$1 million was spent on employees in the form of prizes and contest
winnings. Mr. Parsons stated, ''We learned a long time ago, happy employees
are productive employees. We hold fun contests all throughout the whole
year.'' The successful year was concluded with an amazing company party
featuring musical entertainment by the Gin Blossoms and gifts for all the
employees.
Link to Full Story
New Blockbuster Highlights Cybercrime
Network World, January 18 2008: WHOIS information and
cybercrime could soon be common conversation topics for even those
unfamiliar with the domain name industry. "Untraceable," a new
cyber-thriller starring Diane Lane, is bringing these tools of the trade
into the forefront of popular culture. Technology used by DNSstuff, an
organization that works in WHOIS searches and other DNS tools, is featured
in the film. DNSstuff helped the films' writers and producers with various
tasks, such as which websites to visit when you want to run a WHOIS query or
a traceroute, and how those websites would or should look on the big screen.
DNSstuff took further advantage of this opportunity, creating a new product
line to coincide with the film's release on January 25. The new product,
Vector Trace, takes on the look and feel of the technology featured in the
movie using DNS tools. "Untraceable" takes an extreme view of cybercrime by
pursuing a cyber-killer. "DNS can be exploited in ways that make it
difficult for people to detect. Most wouldn't notice if a DNS system has
been diverted," says Paul Parisi, CTO of DNSstuff. "In most cases, DNS
systems are distributed and weak. It's fairly easy to subvert different
parts of it to direct people online away from where they thought they were
going to another location and make them vulnerable."
Link to Full Story
Upcoming
events
Let
the National
Arbitration Forum know of
your upcoming events for listing in Domain News. Send event listing
information to:
domain-news@adrforum.com.
Please type "DOMAIN NEWS EVENTS" in the subject header.
back to top
|
