Why are these domains being nuked?

[DataSN.com]

I don't know the exact legal terms in describing this situation so please forgive me using the word *nuked*.

The case is milanoo.com and dressale.com and almost a hundred others that are the largest wedding dress sellers from China. milanoo.com and dressale.com are 2 of the largest and most successful, generating tens of millions dollars of sales per year.

From what I know, their domains are just fine with no squatting or infringement or anything but they are using wedding dress designs and probably copyrighted wedding dress pictures from davidsbridal.com.

Is this enough for their domain to be *nuked*? If you check their whois:

http://whois.domaintools.com/milanoo.com
http://whois.domaintools.com/dressale.com

Both of their registrants are now "David's Bridal". While dressale.com is completely down for me, milanoo.com continues to operate which I suppose is because they have reached some confidential agreement.

What I don't understand is, why using copyrighted materials alone can be enough for the domain to be completely taken over? Ain't it just for the hosting part? I thought they would only have the right to take down the hosting and ask for compensation or etc.?

Can somebody please give me some solid reasons why this is happening, like pointing me to some legal terms that justify this?

Thanks a lot!

 

[Cartoonz]

probably counterfeiting...
knockoffs, fake stuff.

I know nothing about this particular case but I'd bet it was a result of the above behavior by the guys in China.

 

[DataSN.com]

probably counterfeiting...
knockoffs, fake stuff.

I know nothing about this particular case but I'd bet it was a result of the above behavior by the guys in China.

For sure, they are copying copyrighted designer product but they never claim to be selling the original designer product. For example, they may be copying the styles of Nike shoes but they never pitch their products as Nike - but instead, probably, in their own brand like Milanoo.

So this is enough for the domain to be *nuked*?

 

[suddeninnovations]

Copying designs violates copyright law. Your concerns in the example provided that they didn't use the brand names or try to pass them off as such is a reference to trademark law. They are not the same.

If you spend your time, your resources and skills to design a product, piece of art, or any type of creation, and someone comes along and uses that design without agreement and proper consideration for their own profit, then they have done nothing less than committed theft by stealing that time, those resources and skills that you exhausted.

 

[DataSN.com]

Copying designs violates copyright law. Your concerns in the example provided that they didn't use the brand names or try to pass them off as such is a reference to trademark law. They are not the same.

If you spend your time, your resources and skills to design a product, piece of art, or any type of creation, and someone comes along and uses that design without agreement and proper consideration for their own profit, then they have done nothing less than committed theft by stealing that time, those resources and skills that you exhausted.

I know that. What I don't know is why violating copyright alone can be enough for the domain to be taken away - this is too harsh for just copyright violation.

 

[suddeninnovations]

I don't know the specific examples you're speaking of or the companies involved. But, just speaking hypothetically based on what you've said... If one truly copies designs and copyrighted material so blatantly as you say, they have outright stolen property which cannot be done by accident. And, those harmed by the act have a right of recovery.

I'm not sure how you can say something is "just a copyright violation," or how you can downplay such an act, especially when done so to such an extreme that you claimed they were "successful". A copyright is property. Perhaps you might think differently if they were stealing your property or that of a family member. And, I'm not sure how you can say taking a domain away is TOO HARSH??? If a domain is used as a tool in violating the rights of others and/or say in violation of international business law in general, then it can be taken away. People aren't born with some inherit right to have an internet domain name. They register it and in turn receive a license for its use under certain terms (ie, not using it in violation of the law and others' rights). If you need a more extreme example to understand, if someone commits a violent act on another, authorities don't just give back a recovered weapon to the perpetrator.

People who design material for trade purposes have a right to exhaust the market before another decides to reproduce the designs... Hence the long length of time that copyrights last. Those who copy designs obviously see value in those designs or they wouldn't take such action, and for that value they should grant an agreed upon consideration or seize from such acts. If someone completely copies designs or reverse engineers a product without consent, they should expect consequences for the severe harm they cause the victim.

 

[Cartoonz]

They likely got a judgement in court against the copyright infringing outfit and used that to take the domains as a partial satisfaction of the judgment.
So, yeah, it does make sense.

 

[DataSN.com]

I don't know the specific examples you're speaking of or the companies involved. But, just speaking hypothetically based on what you've said... If one truly copies designs and copyrighted material so blatantly as you say, they have outright stolen property which cannot be done by accident. And, those harmed by the act have a right of recovery.

I'm not sure how you can say something is "just a copyright violation," or how you can downplay such an act, especially when done so to such an extreme that you claimed they were "successful". A copyright is property. Perhaps you might think differently if they were stealing your property or that of a family member. And, I'm not sure how you can say taking a domain away is TOO HARSH??? If a domain is used as a tool in violating the rights of others and/or say in violation of international business law in general, then it can be taken away. People aren't born with some inherit right to have an internet domain name. They register it and in turn receive a license for its use under certain terms (ie, not using it in violation of the law and others' rights). If you need a more extreme example to understand, if someone commits a violent act on another, authorities don't just give back a recovered weapon to the perpetrator.

People who design material for trade purposes have a right to exhaust the market before another decides to reproduce the designs... Hence the long length of time that copyrights last. Those who copy designs obviously see value in those designs or they wouldn't take such action, and for that value they should grant an agreed upon consideration or seize from such acts. If someone completely copies designs or reverse engineers a product without consent, they should expect consequences for the severe harm they cause the victim.

They likely got a judgement in court against the copyright infringing outfit and used that to take the domains as a partial satisfaction of the judgment.

Thanks for the reasoning! It's making sense to me now.