New Bill Threatens Domain Registrants and Poses Risks to Internet Commerce

[mediawizard]

Does having a TM on your domain allow the domain to be yours inspite of not having paid your registrar - probably not, so that is not really going to help unless you develop also.

Even developed site have a problem - the bill says that it must be used in a "non-commercial" manner - which means, no ads... commercial websites are fair game. So tm-ing and developing will probably not protect you either - if big business really wants your domain, you need to be able to defend it in court - only the big domain companies even have the capacity to fight legal battles for domains, the small guy (me) will probably just be another statistic.

I really think we're at the beginning of the end of the domaining industry (and maybe even the web as we know it) unless the big guys put their weight behind lobbying against the 'bad elements' of this piece of legislation and manage to get it removed. Though even that is no guarantee it won't creep in again in some other... big business has deep pockets and is after your domains... be afraid, be very afraid.

[Irish31]

I'm not one for making broad, sweeping comments like "this bill will spell the beginning of the end of the Domain industry", however, as written, I don't see how this won't be just that.

I can well imagine so many companies out there that have "missed out" on getting key .com's are just licking their lips and waiting for this to pass. The second it does they will be starting the new process of taking several domains from holders and the forums will lite up with cries of injustice and plight.

It would obviously be too late then. Would this only affect a .COM? How exactly would this hold up in court if a German owned a .COM for 4 years and a company that was created 1 year ago (US based) came in and tried to take it away under this new act? Would the citizenship of the domain owner be a moot point, since the domain itself is handled by a registry that is US based?

Either way, I stick with .CA so this wouldn't really directly affect me, but don't be fooled, if this passes, and sadly, it probably will since in America "He who has the most money, wins", then it will change the landscape of domaining period.

I wouldn't want to have much money in .COM tied up when this bill passes though, you don't know who is waiting on the other side of the fence to steal your domain legally now, do you?

[Gerry]

How exactly would this hold up in court if a German owned a .COM for 4 years and a company that was created 1 year ago (US based) came in and tried to take it away under this new act? Would the citizenship of the domain owner be a moot point, since the domain itself is handled by a registry that is US based?

I had also contemplated this. Perhaps the notion of "proxy" registrars may be a trend to come.

This group is using the domain CADNA.org.

Maybe someone should notify www.cadna.com, which is TM'd by the way, and let them know that someone is interested in taking their domain name away under the guise of the US Senate.

I presume then the pressure would be on CADNA.org to even attempt to prove that this is not the case. And how could they ever possibly prove what their intentions are or are not based on the language of this bill.

I just got off work so someone else can tackle this.

[H2FC]

In addition to fighting this bill so that it doesn't destroy the domaining industry I believe we must also start policing ourselves. We all know there are many names registered and/or sold/purchased that are obvious infringements on established companies and businesses. I hope I don't step on too many toes but I think this practice should be discouraged and frowned upon by all domainers.

[lordbyroniv]

In addition to fighting this bill so that it doesn't destroy the domaining industry I believe we must also start policing ourselves. We all know there are many names registered and/or sold/purchased that are obvious infringements on established companies and businesses. I hope I don't step on too many toes but I think this practice should be discouraged and frowned upon by all domainers.

I absolutely agree the practice of owning tradmark infinging names should be frowned upon

Interstingly enough, Ameriquestmortgage.com just re-sold on Name jet for $16,001. Ameriquest used to be a gigantic mortgage originator. They now just do mortgage servicing. They have over 30 trademarks on the "Ameriquest" name.

Why would somebody shell out $16,001 for a heavily trademarked name?

I think perhaps domainers take on risk they are not aware they are taking on
and perhaps its high time they started taking trademark infringement a tad more seriously than they currently do

[Adonis]

Would this only affect a .COM? How exactly would this hold up in court if a German owned a .COM for 4 years and a company that was created 1 year ago (US based) came in and tried to take it away under this new act? Would the citizenship of the domain owner be a moot point, since the domain itself is handled by a registry that is US based?

I don't know, but logically thinking, i think they would have a good chance in taking the domain away from the registrant... provided the german registrant does not have an active (and used in the classes it was registered for) trademark in Germany. The .com is an international domain.

Maybe its worthwhile to find if there are any prior court rulings/arbitrations on similar cases.

[Gerry]

I think perhaps domainers take on risk they are not aware they are taking on
and perhaps its high time they started taking trademark infringement a tad more seriously than they currently do

Or perhaps they do know the risk and choose to ignore it.

Folks are all about traffic, traffic, traffic and revenue producing names.

That was an exceptionally risky purchase. I'm not that much into risk taking. $16K could have bought some other marketable gem.

[sashas]

This bill is really, really outrageous in certain sections.

The internet was the last free, open source of information and everything else in the world. I think thats going down soon, if this bill is any indicator of things to come.

By the way, if development is NOT enough to protect a domain, and neither is a TM, then what is? Could I simply challenge every generic .com and .net with a working website, and take the name away from them? Wouldn't it be great to see Download.com taken from CNet?

Mostly, I don't get this bill, the purpose, the prejudices. To me, its written mostly by old dumbasses who know nothing about the internet, and expect it to be like one giant library with us as the librarians.

Wouldn't this bill severely impact Google's AdWords business? Or even web advertising in general? With all generic, type-in domains in the pockets of the corporations, you wouldn't need Adsense for publishers to deliver targeted visitors to your site, would you? Other than search engine traffic, all the other traffic you get through relevant websites running AdSense would be null and void, because you could simply takeover those relevant websites and their domains.

[Focus]

Well, can someone please tell me the potential timeframes involved in something like this getting passed and becoming active (worst case scenario) also, I would like to add that the problem has not been with domainers and TM domains, it's been with the f*cking scammers and phishing that plagues the internet and somehow gets tied into domaining when in fact the two are completely seperate and unrelated. I love the way we are possibly taking the black eye here for them.

Fact of the matter is a VERY LARGE part of web advertising (and google money and everyone else's) relies on traffic & consumers originating from questionable domains and is a very core part of net commerce and the infrastructure of online advertising, this is reality.

I rarely say this...but I have a really bad feeling about this whole thing..

[FuseFX]

Well, can someone please tell me the potential timeframes involved in something like this getting passed and becoming active (worst case scenario) also, I would like to add that the problem has not been with domainers and TM domains, it's been with the f*cking scammers and phishing that plagues the internet and somehow gets tied into domaining when in fact the two are completely seperate and unrelated. I love the way we are possibly taking the black eye here for them.

Fact of the matter is a VERY LARGE part of web advertising (and google money and everyone else's) relies on traffic & consumers originating from questionable domains and is a very core part of net commerce and the infrastructure of online advertising, this is reality.

I rarely say this...but I have a really bad feeling about this whole thing..

Can anyone with insider contacts at Google try to get a scoop on what they plan to do about it?

[Focus]

From what I understand google has people on the "inside" in congress...hopefully they get to exercise those big brass bull balls in this situation..

[FuseFX]

From what I understand google has people on the "inside" in congress...hopefully they get to exercise those big brass bull balls in this situation..

I will try to give a few contacts a call and see if we can get more mainstream media to cover the evil-effects of this bill. Not someone needs to brainstorm how it we can connect this to even bigger picture so that it gets the attention of larger media outlets.

[austinandrew]

Or perhaps they do know the risk and choose to ignore it.

Folks are all about traffic, traffic, traffic and revenue producing names.

That was an exceptionally risky purchase. I'm not that much into risk taking. $16K could have bought some other marketable gem.

Well, shouldn't NameJet police that sort of thing too?

I was on another forum the other day and people were blatantly selling TM domains. And people were biting, asking questions about the revenue and such.

I agree, we need to police ourselves. We're easy targets if we don't.

I will try to give a few contacts a call and see if we can get more mainstream media to cover the evil-effects of this bill. Not someone needs to brainstorm how it we can connect this to even bigger picture so that it gets the attention of larger media outlets.

I can tell you that the registrars are organizing to fight this. GoDaddy has a full time person in Washington DC. But they're more concerned about losing whois privacy.

You need to contact your registrars and make sure they're doing something about this. They probably have more money than you to fight this. Ask them to join ICA, too.

[Focus]

Again, all remedies necessary are already in place for tm holders through arbitration and civil due process which are clearly understood and outlined all over the world and the Internet. It's not our place or the registrars place to start making domain judgement calls unless it's child porn or such that is a criminal and illegal activity, at this point a possibly tm infringing domain is NOT a criminal issue but civil and that is a risk that the domain owner faces in it's usage and ownership but not a matter that any registrar or sales platform should get involved in unless they themselves are found to be liable possibly and so far they have not been. If this were to happen, then expect registrars to start taking tm domains out of your private accounts and just handing them over to anyone who puts a claim against it, or maybe before that ever even happens...now how "fair" would that be? Just imagine all those scenarios playing out in your head!

Please read more here:

http://www.dnforum.com/f31/whats-ste...ad-282963.html

[sashas]

the problem has been largely due to the fact that the domain owners that the world does know of redirect Disney and Cartoon Network typos to adult affiliates.

And that has, pretty much, been the downfall of domaining. The people who do come in the limelight are the sick, greedy, unscrupulous bastards. The more professional, more straight domainers are not known in the mainstream media. "Domain Owner Directing Disney Typos to Adult Site" makes for a lot better headline than "John Doe Works 16 Hours a Day to Earn xx,xxx/month"

We've let ourselves be represented by people like Zaccharias in the media, and thats the image that has been set of domainers

[Focus]

Disney typos make way more money going to travel links

[Acro]

the problem has been largely due to the fact that the domain owners that the world does know of redirect Disney and Cartoon Network typos to adult affiliates.

...

We've let ourselves be represented by people like Zaccharias in the media, and thats the image that has been set of domainers

You mean, John Zuccarini.

That case was decisive about enforcing punitive damages when pornography is involved along with tm violations - let alone the fact that the potential visitors were kids.

[Focus]

Perfect example of laws (and case law) that provisions are already in place that already work....

[draggar]

So I guess if you never "own" your domains then legally you should'nt be liable for infringing on any trademarks because they don't own their domains? In essence it should be registrar against registar for allowing domains with the tm string in the url to begin with...but don't get me started on that dark winding road..

Hypocracy at its best.

[Focus]

Maybe someone should use that as a defense...stranger things have happened