In my opinion these portions of the Bill leaves too much vagueness in terms of violation of the act, empowers (registered) trademark owners while eroding the rights of domain name owners who should have inherit rights. Is un-American in that it gives injunctive relief and power without explanation. What happened to due process? Bill also declares all whois privacy as used for malicious reasons; what about people wanting privacy against litigious companies. Ive probably missed other portions, but bill is terrible.
S.2(9) Phishing operators utilize deceptive domain names for their schemes. They
routinely register domain names that mimic the addresses of well-known online
merchants, and then set up websites that can fool consumers into releasing
personal and financial information.
S.2(12) Deceptive domain names, and the abuses for which they are used,
threaten the integrity of domain name system. Businesses, small and large, rely
upon the integrity of the domain name registration to ensure that their brands
aren't misrepresented. The World Intellectual Property Organization reported in
April 2007, that the number of Internet domain name cybersquatting disputes
increased 25 percent in 2006.
S.2(15) WHOIS databases provide a crucial tool for businesses, the Federal Trade
Commission, and other law enforcement agencies to track down brand
infringement, online fraud, identity theft, and other online illegal activity, but
are often hindered in their pursuit because the person responsible is hiding
behind the anonymity of false registration information.
S.3(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.
s.4 (c) Actions by Owners of Trademark- Any person who is the owner of a trademark
that is used or otherwise involved in the commission of a violation of this Act may
bring a civil action in any district court of the United States with jurisdiction over the
person who committed such violation to--
(1) enjoin further violation of this Act by that person;
(2) enforce compliance with this Act;
(3) recover damages for any monetary loss incurred by such owner as result of
such violation; or
(4) obtain such further and other relief as the court may deem appropriate,
including punitive damages if the court determines that the defendant
committed the violation willfully and knowingly.
(e) Availability of Cease and Desist Orders and Injunctive Relief Without Showing of
Knowledge- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in any proceeding or
action pursuant to subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section to enforce
compliance, through an order to cease and desist or an injunction, with the
provisions of section 3, neither the Commission nor the Federal Communications
Commission shall be required to allege or prove the state of mind required by such
section or subparagraph.
What about a Bill against reverse domain name hijacking? May be too American? Lets stop fascist favored bills that empower big business and government over the rights of its citizens.
