"... last month, EnCirca Inc. began offering second-level names without the third-level requirement and said any profession at all could get one. It also expanded the service beyond the four countries in which credentialing procedures had been established.
ICANN responded by suggesting the new service "violates the spirit of name restrictions."
In an e-mail ..., EnCirca president Tom Barrett said his company plans to keep offering the service unless restrictions are set."
April 08, 2005
Update on the ".pro" opening
In a precedent post I echoed that .pro is now widely open. A Washington Post article confirms this:
April 07, 2005
ICANN not a Government actor under US Law
According to BNA's Internet Law News (4/7/05), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ICANN is not a government actor and thus is not subject to the First Amendment. The decision has been designated as unpublished. Case name is McNeil v. Verisign.
April 06, 2005
Another "-sucks.com" case ruled in favor of the respondent
Paul Petrovich & Petrovich Development Company and Petrovich, Inc. submitted a complaint to the NAF, because of the use of petrovichsucks.com.
The panel found "that the petrovichsucks.com domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s Petrovich or Petrovich Development Company marks because no reasonable person would conclude that a real estate developer would use a mark of that kind to promote his services. The obvious impression from the domain name is that it exists for the purpose of criticism of Petrovich. See Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001)."
Decision [Spotted on UDRP Law]
The panel found "that the petrovichsucks.com domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s Petrovich or Petrovich Development Company marks because no reasonable person would conclude that a real estate developer would use a mark of that kind to promote his services. The obvious impression from the domain name is that it exists for the purpose of criticism of Petrovich. See Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Parisi, D2000-1015 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2001)."
Decision [Spotted on UDRP Law]
Usage licite de meta-tags identiques au signe d'un concurrent
Une petite première : la Cour d’appel de Paris a considéré que l’usage de la dénomination sociale d’un concurrent à titre de méta-balise n’emportait pas détournement de clientèle.
April 05, 2005
Freedom of speech through domain names
Squarely rejecting trademark infringement and dilution claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today held that citizens who use a trademark as the domain name for a noncommercial consumer criticism site about the trademarked goods do not violate the trademark laws.
The case involved a pair of web sites at bosleymedical.com and bosleymedicalviolations.com. The Court of Appeals held that both trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims can proceed only when the defendant is using the trademark in connection with the sale of goods and services, and an Internet web site, even if it criticizes those goods and services, is simply not the sort of commercial use to which the Lanham Act is directed.
See also Eric's opinion and Michael's.
UPDATE [April 4]: M. Schwimmer reminds us that there has been a UDRP decision in this case
Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, No. 04-55962 (April 4, 2005) [Thanks Benoît].
The case involved a pair of web sites at bosleymedical.com and bosleymedicalviolations.com. The Court of Appeals held that both trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims can proceed only when the defendant is using the trademark in connection with the sale of goods and services, and an Internet web site, even if it criticizes those goods and services, is simply not the sort of commercial use to which the Lanham Act is directed.
See also Eric's opinion and Michael's.
UPDATE [April 4]: M. Schwimmer reminds us that there has been a UDRP decision in this case
Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, No. 04-55962 (April 4, 2005) [Thanks Benoît].
April 04, 2005
Nouvelle condamnation de Google en France (et nouveau titre banal...)
En mettant en ligne un récent jugement, VoxPI (le nouveau blog du Cabinet Meyer & Partenaires) nous apprend que Google a (une nouvelle fois...) été condamné pour la mise en oeuvre de son programme AdWords.
Il était cette fois assigné en contrefaçon de la marque EuroChallenges. De façon intéressante, mais aussi logique, le demandeur avait aussi assigné les annonceurs, qui ont également été condamnés : ayant « délibérément choisi le marque d’un concurrent, Eurochallenges, pour attirer d’éventuels clients », la société Tiger et Monsieur B. R. ne peuvent échapper à leur responsabilité à l’égard des demandeurs ni demander à Google de les garantir des condamnations.
Il était cette fois assigné en contrefaçon de la marque EuroChallenges. De façon intéressante, mais aussi logique, le demandeur avait aussi assigné les annonceurs, qui ont également été condamnés : ayant « délibérément choisi le marque d’un concurrent, Eurochallenges, pour attirer d’éventuels clients », la société Tiger et Monsieur B. R. ne peuvent échapper à leur responsabilité à l’égard des demandeurs ni demander à Google de les garantir des condamnations.
April 03, 2005
News from the ABA Cyberspace Law Committee
The American Bar Association Cyberspace Law Committee announced that its Ecommerce Subcommittee recently discussed the safeselling.org project.
This would be an ABA sponsored free- access website devoted to providing information on the common questions of entrepreneurs launching an on-line venture. The site would cover such topics as domain names, payment methods, taxation, terms and conditions, privacy, and security, in an FAQ format directed primarily at non-lawyers. The paradigm for this project is safeshopping.org, a currently-operating ABA-sponsored website which provides tips to consumers regarding on-line shopping.
This would be an ABA sponsored free- access website devoted to providing information on the common questions of entrepreneurs launching an on-line venture. The site would cover such topics as domain names, payment methods, taxation, terms and conditions, privacy, and security, in an FAQ format directed primarily at non-lawyers. The paradigm for this project is safeshopping.org, a currently-operating ABA-sponsored website which provides tips to consumers regarding on-line shopping.
April 01, 2005
NOT April Fool's day
The US government just finished a report on Internet traffic that Congress requested seven years ago.
A 1998 law required the Commerce Department to seek a study about Web addresses and trademarks by the National Research Council and wrap up the report within nine months. Well, it took a little longer... but the report Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation is available (you may read the Executive summary instead).
MercuryNews.com, 3/31/2005, Panel finally finishes Internet study Congress requested in 1998.
Press release by The National Academies here.
A 1998 law required the Commerce Department to seek a study about Web addresses and trademarks by the National Research Council and wrap up the report within nine months. Well, it took a little longer... but the report Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation is available (you may read the Executive summary instead).
MercuryNews.com, 3/31/2005, Panel finally finishes Internet study Congress requested in 1998.
Press release by The National Academies here.
Appeals court upholds Sex.com ruling
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)