Debunk TM infringement fears

[Prospecting]

Further solidification, Snowe Bill will not automatically allow TM holders to take away domain names from a domainer, unless of course malicious or infringing intent was/is at hand with a domainer's action.
(my opinion anyway, I know, everyone has one)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.economist04mar04,0,5654626.story

 

[HarveyJ]

That's what they say now... but a lot of bills either get ammended, have a rider, or just plain get used for things that they weren't intended for, but loose wording allows.

Extreme, but still an example: "Hey, it's not torture, just a little water...."

 

[Poker]

heard that

 

[draggar]

My question is:

Isn't that already against ICANN and WIPO policies and enforced? Sounds redundant to me.

While we're at it, let's write a bill making murder illegal! That way, we can say all the people who didn't vote for it are pro-murder!!

 

[Gerry]

...Snowe Bill will not automatically allow TM holders to take away domain names from a domainer...

Of course not. Nothing is "automatic." Some one has to file a claim.

...unless of course malicious or infringing intent was/is at hand with a domainer's action.

Malicious intent? You mean like this? This is the very definition of what Snowe has loosely called Phishing and deceptive practice:

S.2661
APCPA (Introduced in Senate)

SEC. 3. PHISHING; RELATED DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

(a) Phishing; Deceptive Solicitations of Identifying Information-

(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to solicit identifying information from a protected computer if--

(A) the identifying information is solicited by means of false or fraudulent pretenses or misleading representations that the solicitation is being requested by, or made on behalf of, a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity; and[/COLOR]

(B) such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that its representations would be likely to mislead a computer user, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the solicitation of the identifying information (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), a person that does not have the authority, express or implied, to make statements on behalf of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity purported to be represented shall be considered to be in violation of such paragraph (1)(A) for having false or fraudulent pretenses or making misleading representations.

(3) CYBERSQUATTED DOMAIN NAMES- It is unlawful for any person to use a domain name that is in violation of section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125), to solicit identifying information from a protected computer in violation of paragraph (1).

(b) Deceptive or Misleading Domain Names-

(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to use a domain name in an electronic mail message, an instant message, or in connection with the display of a webpage or an advertisement on a webpage, if--

(A) such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity;

(B) such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that the domain name would be likely to mislead a computer user, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents of such electronic mail message, instant message, webpage, or advertisement (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).

(2) CIRCUMSTANCES FACTORING INTO KNOWLEDGE DETERMINATION- In determining whether a person meets the requirement established under paragraph (1)(B), the Commission shall consider circumstances such as the--

(A) trademark or other intellectual property rights of a person, if any, in the domain name;

(B) extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(C) person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(D) person's bona fide noncommercial use of the domain name or fair use of a mark in a website accessible under the domain name;

(E) person's intent to divert consumers from the brand name or trademark owner's online location to a website accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the brand name or the trademark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the trademark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website;

(F) person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the brand name or trademark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(G) person's--

(i) provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name;

(ii) intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information; or

(iii) prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; and

(H) person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to brand names or trademarks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or damaging to the brand name or dilutive of famous trademarks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties.

Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first vote.

Domains registered by the Republican National Committee or on servers used by the committee:

2007

calculatingclinton.com

canttrustclinton.com

clintonbabbit.com

clintoncleland.com

clintoncohen.com

clintonisbad.com

clintoniscorrupt.com

clintoniswrong.com

clintonkerrey.com

clintonlibrarycard.com

clintonlibraryresolution.com

clintonomalley.com

clintonsalazar.com

clintonschweitzer.com

clintontruthwatch.com

hillaryiswrong.com

hillarymythfact.com

hillaryrecords.com

hillaryspendometer.com

hillarytaxplan.com

hillarytruthsquad.com

hopelesshillary.com

outwithhillary.com

thetwohillarys.com

2008

amateurobama.com

barackisliberal.com

barackiswrong.com

baracknotready.com

barackobamanotready.com

barackobamatheliberal.com

baracktheamateur.com

barackthebeginner.com

fauxbama.org

hesnotready.com

meetbarackobama.com

norealexperience.com

nowecannot.com

nowecannot.net

nowecannot.org

obamaisliberal.com

obamaiswrong.com

obamanotready.com

obamaspendometer.com

obamatheamateur.com

obamathebeginner.com

yeswecandowhat.com

yeswecanwhat.com

 

[Focus]

throw em' all in jail...billions in fines! lol k:

ummmmm...uhhhh.....

The "Snowe Bill" must be stopped!

 

[katherine]

Yes it is redundant but a bill of law has more power than icann regulations. Also a bill could actually criminalize petty issues like invalid whois etc.

 

[Gerry]

Also a bill could actually criminalize petty issues like invalid whois etc.

THAT IS part of her/his bill.

 

[HarveyJ]

You can criminalize things till the cows come home, doesn't mean people will obey... just means you have more criminals.
If it becomes illegal to fill out invalid whois information, more people will use a privacy service like Moniker, which will just make it all the harder to track them down.

 

[Gerry]

You can criminalize things till the cows come home, doesn't mean people will obey... just means you have more criminals.
If it becomes illegal to fill out invalid whois information, more people will use a privacy service like Moniker, which will just make it all the harder to track them down.

This bill will take away the rights of privacy and cloaked WHOIS info.

In essence, this bill (in its entirety) makes all those rights for privacy protection disappear.

 

[DropWizard.com]

More likely to make american registrars disappear. They'll be at a real disadvantage.