New Bill Threatens Domain Registrants and Poses Risks to Internet Commerce

[Acro]

Signed the petition.

[mediawizard]

I signed the petition and sent email to my list of 300 domainers.

Also blogged about it... http://www.mwzd.com/2008/03/06/the-g...can-snowe-job/

We need to stop this in its tracks

[jaydub]

It is at 603 now...I was 180 2 hours ago...

[Focus]

People definitely all agree this Bill belongs in the garbage...

[boz]

Originally Posted by draggar

Here is what gets me.

I have a client who was illegally .com'ed last year. The person put up a site acting like my client, is even selling illegal copies of his book. We don't have the money for a WIPO. (The owner of the .com is also outside of the US).

With his permission, I registered the .net, .org, and .info of his name and put up a site on the .org (301'ed the other 2 to the .org). I also put up a site for him and I am selling legal copies of his books. I also have a section about the truth of the .com site (it is not him and the books are illegal copies that were published with stolen money).

The killer is that if this law passes, the fraudulent owner of the .com would have the right to not only take my domains PLUS sue me, and my client, for "damages" and lost sales since the .com site was up and this could be viewed as "bad faith".

Name and shame 'em.

What country are the scammers based in? I may be able to give you some advice depending on that.

Either post here or PM me.

[Jacksplat]

Originally Posted by karter9977

Thanks Adam for sending out the email. Hopefully we get a lot more people to sign the petition.

I'm far from home again and havent been able to get into my inbox. If it's a generic email gone out to our membership contact, can I get a copy in my pm box ?

Originally Posted by Focus

If this bill passes I'm moving out of this country

Your always welcome in Canada Chris. Our economy is rockin'

.

Thanks boz for the input on previous page.

[mediawizard]

The good Senator has deigned to blog about this -

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/02/29/p...-olympia-snowe

It also facilitates the restoration of trust and consumer confidence that has been eroded by the prevalence of deceptive emails and websites, which has, in part, mired the Internet from achieving its full potential.

It's full potential of getting hijacked by her backers, the big money crowd over at cadna.org, seems more palatable to the lady.

[taboo]

signed, kudos to those fighting this bill.

[Ehsan]

I just signed the Petition now preparing to blog about it !

[boz]

Originally Posted by lordbyroniv

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

In Australia, trademarks have to be in constant use otherwise a third-party who wants to use a trademarked name can bring a non-use notice to have it removed.

Trademarks also need to be renewed every 10 years, so this clears out any not being used.

Also, under Australian trademark legislation, if the owner of a trademark doesn't take pro-active action to search for and stop infringements of it's trademark, they can lose their claim to ownership of that trademark.

The regulations are probably the same in the U.S. as there is an alignment internationally in trademark law.

That might be why they're taking the risk to acquire these names.

Originally Posted by Irish31

...
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?

For a partial answer to this, see my longish post regarding a U.S.-based company trying to heavy me.

[DaddyHalbucks]

You can thank all the cybersquatters for this.

Now the heat is coming down BIG TIME on all domain owners, including the good guys.

[boz]

One other thing which is very relevant BUT you do need to get advice or read your local tradmark laws:

Put the tm mark on your website!!

That's right. IF you aren't actually infringing someone else's trademark (in which case this will NOT apply) and you want to begin to protect yourself, then the application of this simple mark to your website may offer you "some" protection.

It won't establish prior rights to a trademark and it is still better to apply for a trademark, but it WILL give you some ammunition.

Please note, however, that this action, like that of actually applying for a trademark, can only help if your site is used for commerce.

And it won't help you if you're actually infringing someone else's trademark.

Originally Posted by Focus

hmmmmmmm...I wonder how these people even sleep at night, they must be clueless as to the real impact this could have on people and their business, incomes, family. What would be the timeframe on something like this getting passed or enacted and would previous domain registrations be considered "grandfathered"?

How do they sleep at night?

They're politicians.

[NameCharger]

Contacting your state representatives:

Congress.org link

Look for "My Elected Officials" in the upper left corner, enter your zip code to find your representatives.


Subject: S. 2661 -- Oppose

Message:
Dear <Congressman>,

Please oppose bill S. 2661 "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (APCPA)" introduced by Senator Snowe and cosponsored by Senators Nelson and Stevens.

I strongly support efforts to thwart trademark infringement, criminal phishing schemes, and the furnishing of inaccurate WHOIS database information. S. 2661, however, contains provisions that are largely unrelated to these objectives and that radically and unnecessarily expand the rights of trademark owners to essentially provide them with monopoly rights on registered trademarks.

I am opposed to the establishment of a parallel domain name infringement enforcement scheme that is more expansive and more onerous than the existing, highly effective remedies available to trademark owners through ICANN's UDRP process and U.S. trademark law. Trademark owners already prevail in 85% of all UDRP complaints and nearly 100% of all ACPA cases.

Please stand firm for America's small businesses, families, and entrepreneurs and protect them from this dangerous, predatory legislation and oppose S. 2661.

[rush]

I got both of my parents to sign the petition was well. Let's hit the 2000 mark guys!

[Cashcows]

I have not read the whole bill only parts but it looks to target phishing, where are the sections that are a threat to people using non-tm and not cybersquating? It looks at is helping people protect legitimate use?

Can someone point out where the threat is in the actual bill?

[internext]

Signed the petition and wrote my representatives via Congress.org.

Thanks for spreading the word.

Seriously someone needs to call Rush Limbaugh (and other prominent conservatives; they despise Olympia J. Snowe to begin with) and tell him about this on the air. Like him or not, a HUGE audience would bring tons of pressure if you can get him behind this.

[MobileDesigner]

signed it.
i think the people behind the bill got confused between us and the loser phishermen. if it passes, anyone wanna buy my domains?

[staffjam]

Just signed it.
I'll be drumming up a few more signatures.

[John Jupp]

I'd have to see the full extent of the proposed legislation and in particular if it shall relate solely to .com domain extensions or if this is an attempt by US Federal authorities to act outside their remit and take control of the domain extensions of other countries.

If they tried it would cause a trade dispute and so far every time the US has implemented Federal Legislation without the co-operation of Europe, they've come unstuck.

There are plans for new European legislation which the IAB in the UK is advising on.

[sashas]

I really don't think this bill can get passed in its current form. As Nat pointed out on Snowe's blog, Section 3(b) makes it illegal to display advertising on domains/websites that are "confusingly similar" to existing entities.

This would essentially mean the end of Google AdSense. I'm pretty sure if Google knows about this (which they should), they'll fight this hard. Their entire revenue model is based around AdSense...this bill would mean that the owner of House.com could not display any ads, since the domain is "confusingly similar" to the trademarked House TV series. Developed, or parked, AdSense would be illegal under this bill