Massive CNN UDRP case...

[dtobias]

In this recent decision , a whole boatload of CNN-related domains (consisting of "cnn" followed by various country names, etc.) were ordered transferred to CNN from some entity in the Middle East known as "Channel News Network", which was claiming to be building up a network of "unbiased" news sites regarding mideast issues.

Aside from the issue of the foolishness of the respondent, if indeed their intent is to build a serious news organization, to pick a name that steps on the toes of a famous trademark in the same field, what is notable in this case to me is that both sides of the case seem to think that, if one wishes to build a global network of news sites, it is a logical thing to register crapheaps of domains of the form [YourName]usa.com, [YourName]canada.com, [YourName]kuwait.com, ad nauseam. The respondent did so, and claimed it to be an integral part of his business plan. The complainant successfully challenged it, using as one argument that such names were confusingly similar to their own official CNN sites, some of which were at URLs like "CNN[country].com" or "CNN[language].com", etc.

Neither side seems to have given a moment's thought to the much more logical (and vastly less expensive) alternative of getting one domain name, like cnn.com , and using logical subdomains of it, like canada.cnn.com , etc., which require no registration fee and have no possibility of cybersquatting.

Sigh...:sad:

 

[mole]

Dream on Dan, there are always 2 sides to the coin - the theoretical, in principle side, and the political, real world, what's-in-it-for-me side.

History decrees that the dotcom era was spurred purely on irrational hype, and emotional hope. Many people managed to ride the dotcom rodeo and close with millions of dollars in easy money. Unfortunately, the majority didn't, and had to foot the bill for this maybe 1% who rode the bull well.

 

[pljones]

This decision isn't surprising at all. It is interesting to look at some of the Panel's comments.

On choice of law, the Panel said that "Given that the Complainant is a US-based corporation and that the Respondents choose to register each of the disputed domain names through a US registrar, it is only reasonable for the Panel to utilize US law to the extent needed for guidance on any appropriate question of law." That's pretty big. I don't remember a Panel saying so clearly that US law applies in the UDRP if US-based registrars are used (I may be wrong though).

 

[dtobias]

Yeah... if your goal is to build a pyramid of hype rather than to logically and efficiently craft an information infrastructure, then I guess it "works" better to think like a marketing type and register tons of stupid unnecessary domain names (it makes what you're doing look so much more impressive to the masses, don't'cha know) than to think like an engineer and try to make sensible use of subdomains of the domain you already have.

The problem is that this attitude led to a never-ending cycle of futility: first, companies like CNN felt a marketing need to set up sites in unnecessary domains like cnnfn.com and cnnenespanol.com instead of using subdomains logically; then, cybersquatters tried to profit from this by registering other variations that sounded like they might be official sites; then CNN had to take them to UDRP or court and win transfer of the domains (and be saddled with renewal fees for all time on domains they don't really need), and also try to make defensive registrations on any others that might be grabbed by cybersquatters in the future (a futile thing because cybersquatters keep thinking of more silly variations to grab).

If everybody stuck to logical subdomains, it would have been simpler and cheaper for everybody concerned.

There are even some notable cases of fraud artists using domains like ebaysupport.com (or similar stuff beginning with famous names like PayPal, AOL, etc.) and trying to get people to type in their site passwords, credit card numbers, and so on under the pretense of resolving problems with their accounts on the famous sites. The fact that these scams work is due in a large part to the public being used to silly-marketing-gimmick variations on domain names; people find it perfectly reasonable that the customer support site of EBay would be at ebaysupport.com instead of the more logical (and un-cybersquattable) support.ebay.com.

 

[mole]

Dan, I appreciate the logic of subdomains. Only problem is, there is another category of revenue-earning professionals called lawyers who depend on the revenue generating streams of lawsuits for the most trivial of circumstances.

The fascian triangle is a reality in human consciousness. One man feeding off another, and it goes, and it goes.

Technical arguments are fine. So long as the fine line, is recognised :embarrass

 

[dtobias]

That's what it amounts to... trademark owners and domain speculators chasing one another around in circles, auxiliary people like lawyers, registries, and registrars trying to profit by getting money from all of them as they pass by, and those people who are simply trying peacefully to use domain names in a rational way either get ignored in the noise and confusion or, worse, get trampled.

 

[DomainPairs]

Don't forget that you can improve search engine placement by cross linking multiple domains with different ip addresses.

 

[dtobias]

Great... screw up the logic of search engine algorithms while you're screwing up the logic of the domain namespace... all for the ephemeral gains you'll get until the search engines get smarter and discount your attempts at manipulation.