'Typosquatting' Found to Equal Bad Faith

[YOYOYO]

Drewbert

I love the comment about stocdoctor and draqon.

It's just too good.

Will the real Jimmy Swaggart please stand up!

"All right Jessica it looks like no one here is going to admit knowing you."

"So I must say, Jessica Hahn will you please walk over to our panel and stand behind the real Jimmy Swaggart!!"

"Oh!!, who ever would have thought....and he seemed so outspoken about not even thinking to violate a trademark."

"Jessica, we most appreciate you being on the show with us and as always please join us in the studio lounge for our guest reception and to reminisce about your other memorable appearances with us."

 

[pljones]

"To me all registeries should be untouchable" - Whoa, hold up YOYOYO and explain. Why shouldn't registries be required to respect court orders, particularly when it involves the proper transfer/cancellation of an infringing domain name.

You can argue all you want about the ACPA being "unconstitutional" & "illegitimate," but many many courts have ruled otherwise. I think the GlobalSantaFe.com decision was very important and proper. If Korean registrant had been allowed to flout the EDVA's order by getting an injunction from a Korean court, then there would be no way to enforce the in rem provision of the ACPA against a foreign registrant.

Since the .com/.net/org registries are located in the Eastern District of Virginia, that court has the ability to force the registry to cancel or transfer a domain name that has been judged to have been registered in violation of the act. If you don't like it, register in .de or .fr.

 

[YOYOYO]

I knew of all the comments I made in the thread this would be the one someone would get upset about.

The simple answer is, the registries are the infrastructure that makes the internet work. To let them be subject to the whim of any court in the world were they are located threatens the collapse of the entire internet.

This is exactly what has happened in the .uk.co case. Over 8,000 websites no longer exist because of a business disagreement over a contract. Surely not a reason at all for 8,000 websites to be put out of business.

Let's say the US decides that there are websites which contribute to criminal activity of some kind in the US using the .com address, but these websites often change addresses to avoid monitoring.

The US could go to a US court and say, we know there are .com websites that are contributing to a serious crime problem in the US, but because these sites change their url .com address so often, we are unable to track them.

Therefore we are asking the court to disable the entire .com registry.

What is to prevent that from happening and why couldn't it happen.

Specifically as to the case at hand, and in addition to the lack of integrity in the acpa act and how it is enforced which I believe is the case, there is no absolutely no fairness in having a Korean registrant having to come to the US to defend his domain.

It is also an abuse of the rights of the registrar located in Korea and undermines the confidence a potential customer may have in using them to register domain names.

The domain was registered in Korea and that is were the US court order should be served.

There is a proper way to do that. It will take some time but that is better than making the registry subject to local and possibly prejudiced court orders.

It is the US showing it's contempt and lack of respect for the the rest of the world.

Everyone in the world has a right to register a .com domain. That is the domain of first choice and to say to a registrant that they should register a .de or.fr instead is denying the registrants right to belong to the internet community as all other people of the world do.

Another factor is the acpa act does not in any way mention registries as a source of enforcement for the act.

All mention of domain name enforcement concerning registering of names is toward registrars. In fact registrars are given in the acpa act an escape from fines in order to encourage their participation to enforce the act.

No mention is made of protecting the registry. The registry was not considered to be part of the enforcement process by the writers of the acpa act.

In addition since the registrant apparently has made themselves known to their Korean registrar. It appears the identity of the registrant was known to the plaintiff in this case. If that is true then this is an abuse of the "in rem" proceeding itself and is another reason why it should not stand.

 

[pljones]

The companies that registered .uk.co should have known that they were dealing with a Colombian country code, and not .co.uk, the United Kingdom country code. Those registrations were "at risk," and subject to Colombian court jurisdiction, right or wrong. Perhaps they should have registered in .uk, .biz or .bz.

As for your other comments about the ACPA, read it again a little closer. There are several sections that refer to registrars and registries, plus "other domain name authority." For an example, see 15 USC Section 1125(d)(2)(D)(i):

The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall -

(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and

(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.

I think Judge Ellis understands the ACPA better than most, and that his ruling makes sense. Registrars and registries must abide by orders from a court of competent jurisdiction. In this case, the registrant was in Korea but chose to infringe GlobalSantaFe's mark through a .com domain name, therefore, subjecting it to US court jurisdiction. If he wanted to squat on a name and make it more difficult to be sued, he could have registered a .kr domain. This was not an abuse of the in rem proceeding at all.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

What a horrible stupid decision which undermines whatever respect was left for the UDRP!

The arbitration decision should be nullified on appeal to the court.

Eric Sinrod is a ramrod, in my opinion.

Even assuming Zuccarini is a bad guy, bad guys deserve due process too.

A corrupt process is a far greater threat than a single bad guy, or even a bunch of bad guys.

Bad guys are not 100% bad guys. They still love their mother and abide by SOME laws. Just because Zuccarini has perhaps violated trademark rights in other cases, does not mean he has no rights at all, such as to buy truly generic domain names.

In this case, Zuccarini is right!

If John Z. hates the system as much as I imagine he does, I say this flawed decision give him good reason!!