Cybersquatters Not Allowed to Apply for New gTLDs
Monday, October 5th, 2009
Cybersquatters not allowed to apply for new TLDs. Does that include domain registrars?
The latest version of ICANN’s guidebook for new top level domain name applicants includes language to prohibit cybersquatters from applying for new top level domain names. This could have interesting implications if people get technical about it.
First, here’s who is not allowed to apply:
b. Applicant, or any partner, officer, director, or manager, or any person or entity owning (or beneficially owning) fifteen percent or more of applicant is the subject of a pattern of decisions indicating liability for, or repeated practice of bad faith in regard to domain name registrations, including:
i. acquiring domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to the owner of a trademark or service mark or to a competitor, for valuable
consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
ii. registering domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; or
iii. registering domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
iv. using domain names with intent to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark or service mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site or location.
In other words, anyone who has lost a number of domains through UDRP need not apply. That includes many of the companies I suspect are looking into applying for new top level domains. But some of them are good at hiding it by transferring domains in return for the complainant dropping the case, so UDRP records are not a reliable record of their actions.
I wonder if some new gTLD applicants are quietly sweating this one out.
Further Reading:
There should also be a clause about those found guilty of attempted Reverse Name Hijacking.
Cybersquatters Not Allowed to Apply for New gTLDs – http://tinyurl.com/y8zn9j2
David J Castello
There should also be a clause about those found guilty of attempted Reverse Name Hijacking.
—————————
Yes! Yes! Yes!
“There should also be a clause about those found guilty of attempted Reverse Name Hijacking.”
Fantastic idea. I’d love to see the conversation between the intellectual property group and the marketing group about why they can’t get their TLD.
a great idea, at last
This could get interesting indeed for registrants who share identical trademarks with other firms, but their registration is in a different class, e.g., Delta Airlines vs. Delta Faucets
Are you a cybersquatter if you are found guilty once? Twice?
Hasn’t a number of the major registrars been found guilty at least once? I don’t know.
And, then you have to look at their subsidiary companies.
Gee…that should be noooo problem.
That is; once they define: “pattern,” “repeated,” “primarily,” “intent,” and “likelihood.”
Any good attorney would have a field day were ICANN to attempt to disqualify their client from applying for a new TLD using these factors/grounds.
No one’s going to be disqualified on any of these grounds.
Not only RDNH – they should also include provisions prohibiting trademark owners who through their lawyers have engaged in ‘trademark lawyer abuse’ practices.
But let’s think: what the DAG v3 is telling us is that all these registrants who have illegitimately lost their domain names because of biased UDRP panels, will not be able to apply for a new gTLD.
The DNS and the new gTLDs are not an exclusive trademark territory – ICANN and the IP constituency should stop acting as if the DNS is this Masonic place – it is not….
As soon as I finished reading this post I went to make the exact se comment as David. It wa the first thing that came to my mind too.
[...] Continue Reading At DomainNameWire.com [...]
These bone-heads aren’t even close to being finished.
The next obvious “villains” are the bright and highly reputable lawyers who brilliantly “defend” the rights of the “Respondents” in so many UDRP proceedings.
“Reverse Domain Hijacking” found AGAINST the “Complainant:” Pure, clear and perfect genius; but nothing but a nearly invisible feather in the cap– a “finding” which won’t even buy our lawyer, or his client-the “Respondent,” a drink, or even a single sheet from a cheap yellow legal pad- Not even a tissue with which a wipe away a small tear of specific, common law injustice.
Every bit of this trash I read makes me more scared sh*tless! Thank God for Ari, and his fine brethren. I thank Ari first; since he’s saved my tail a time or two. Plus he’s simply a Great Guy. With all this cr*p coming down, I’m grateful to know him and his fellows.
Heads-up all! (See you in Brooklyn!)
Roy Flanders
DotComCatalog.com