<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Woman With World&#8217;s Smallest Waist Wins Cybersquatting Lawsuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:15:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-668308</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-668308</guid>
		<description>@ rob - &lt;em&gt;fat&lt;/em&gt; chance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ rob &#8211; <em>fat</em> chance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rob</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-668272</link>
		<dc:creator>rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:25:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-668272</guid>
		<description>The domain owner didnt show up to defend themselves. 

A women whose only claim to fame is having some crazy Guinness record would have lost if the domain owner had fought this. Always show up for the fight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The domain owner didnt show up to defend themselves. </p>
<p>A women whose only claim to fame is having some crazy Guinness record would have lost if the domain owner had fought this. Always show up for the fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dietmar</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-667203</link>
		<dc:creator>Dietmar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-667203</guid>
		<description>@Ruger “Domainers ARE squatters....&quot;
when they own a domain like cathiejung.com 
without having the permission to own it.
THAT is 100% cypersquatting!

Ahoi!
Dietmar</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ruger “Domainers ARE squatters&#8230;.&#8221;<br />
when they own a domain like cathiejung.com<br />
without having the permission to own it.<br />
THAT is 100% cypersquatting!</p>
<p>Ahoi!<br />
Dietmar</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Berryhil</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-666443</link>
		<dc:creator>John Berryhil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-666443</guid>
		<description>&quot;You cant start an action against a domain.&quot;

Yes you can.  Look up the meaning of &quot;in rem&quot;.

 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem

The ACPA specifically authorizes that type of action in which, yes, the domain name is the defendant.   The actual caption of the case is Cathie Jung v Cathiejung.com.   

A party may have standing to defend in such an action based on an interest in the property.  For example, you might find an action like &quot;US Customs Service v 50 Cases of Rum&quot; in a seizure proceeding.  The importer whose rum it is may appear to contest the allegation that, say, import duties were or were not paid.   

&quot;ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye&quot;

Ongoing cases are matters of public record and there are those whose business it is, specifically, to keep an eye on them.  Howard is one of those people, so this kind of argument by &quot;I know stuff that you don&#039;t know&quot; just doesn&#039;t wash.  

It&#039;s absolutely clear that the domain registrant here was using someone else&#039;s reputation in a specific area to profit from precisely that reputation.  If you read the other filings she lost out on media inquiries from folks who thought it was her website.  The website even identified itself as being hers.  This is not some sort of &quot;edge case&quot; of debatable merit on some fine point of law.  I will grant you that her claim to fame is unusual, but that&#039;s how she&#039;s made a living, and it is that very peculiarity that renders it clear that the domain registrant was a lowlife scumbag, to use the technically precise term.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You cant start an action against a domain.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes you can.  Look up the meaning of &#8220;in rem&#8221;.</p>
<p> <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem</a></p>
<p>The ACPA specifically authorizes that type of action in which, yes, the domain name is the defendant.   The actual caption of the case is Cathie Jung v Cathiejung.com.   </p>
<p>A party may have standing to defend in such an action based on an interest in the property.  For example, you might find an action like &#8220;US Customs Service v 50 Cases of Rum&#8221; in a seizure proceeding.  The importer whose rum it is may appear to contest the allegation that, say, import duties were or were not paid.   </p>
<p>&#8220;ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye&#8221;</p>
<p>Ongoing cases are matters of public record and there are those whose business it is, specifically, to keep an eye on them.  Howard is one of those people, so this kind of argument by &#8220;I know stuff that you don&#8217;t know&#8221; just doesn&#8217;t wash.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s absolutely clear that the domain registrant here was using someone else&#8217;s reputation in a specific area to profit from precisely that reputation.  If you read the other filings she lost out on media inquiries from folks who thought it was her website.  The website even identified itself as being hers.  This is not some sort of &#8220;edge case&#8221; of debatable merit on some fine point of law.  I will grant you that her claim to fame is unusual, but that&#8217;s how she&#8217;s made a living, and it is that very peculiarity that renders it clear that the domain registrant was a lowlife scumbag, to use the technically precise term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nic</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-666427</link>
		<dc:creator>Nic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-666427</guid>
		<description>Perhaps the concept here is that the litigant sought certain &quot;declarations&quot; from the court. Or some type of &quot;equitable relief&quot; perhaps. You cant start an action against a domain. That makes no sense. 

Similarly, people are forever posting notices at the bottom of a website claiming that &quot;website.com&quot; or some made up fictitious business name owns the copyright. Makes no sense. Only a person or an an entity can own property.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps the concept here is that the litigant sought certain &#8220;declarations&#8221; from the court. Or some type of &#8220;equitable relief&#8221; perhaps. You cant start an action against a domain. That makes no sense. </p>
<p>Similarly, people are forever posting notices at the bottom of a website claiming that &#8220;website.com&#8221; or some made up fictitious business name owns the copyright. Makes no sense. Only a person or an an entity can own property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruger</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-666364</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-666364</guid>
		<description>@Howard,

I could go into great detail as to what I do for a living, what I&#039;ve done for a living, and specific examples of ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye...but I won&#039;t.

Just look at the world around you, brother...as a very talented bard once crooned, &quot;Times are a changin&#039;...&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Howard,</p>
<p>I could go into great detail as to what I do for a living, what I&#8217;ve done for a living, and specific examples of ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye&#8230;but I won&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Just look at the world around you, brother&#8230;as a very talented bard once crooned, &#8220;Times are a changin&#8217;&#8230;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Howard</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/30/women-with-worlds-smallest-waist-wins-cybersquatting-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-666354</link>
		<dc:creator>Howard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13421#comment-666354</guid>
		<description>@Ruger

Who the hell made you such an expert on predicting the future of domains?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ruger</p>
<p>Who the hell made you such an expert on predicting the future of domains?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

