Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"
Group’s definition of “cloud community” is too broad.
Cloud Industry Forum Limited has lost its community objections against three applications for the .cloud top level domain name.
The objections were filed against the three applicants who planned to keep their .cloud registries closed to registrations: Google, Amazon.com, and Symantec.
Panelist Stephen L. Drymer ruled that the community Cloud Industry Forum claimed in the objection is not “clearly delineated.”
The trade group refereed to the community in question as the “cloud computing industry,” and then listed 13 examples of participants. They range from hosting providers to lawyers specializing in the field to entities that represent end-users.
Drymer determined that’s not a clearly delineated community:
“With respect, what Objector is proposing here is effectively a community of virtually anyone and everyone – individuals; businesses; private and public groups; professional, academic and government entities – having anything to do with or any interest in cloud computing.”
Drymer later clarified that it’s not just the generic nature of “cloud” alone that formed his opinion, but the broad and ever-changing community Cloud Industry Forum Limited sought to represent.
I wonder what would have happened had the objector simply said it represented cloud service providers and not everyone who touches cloud services? After all, “sport” can apparently be a community.
Financial services company and rating agency can’t have “boycott” domain name, panel rules.
Standard & Poor’s has lost a UDRP against the domain name BoycottStandardandPoors.com at World Intellectual Property Organization.
The domain name owner argued that he’s exercising his first amendment rights by owning the “gripe” style domain name.
The panel determined that the domain name could be used as a gripe site and be protected, so it denied Standard & Poor’s request to transfer the domain name.
But the panel’s wording – and the brevity of its decision – is rather interesting.
Consider that the domain owner registered the domain name in 2011, but hasn’t done anything with it. The panel gave the benefit of the doubt on whether or not he did not have rights/legitimate interests in the domain name:
As Respondent conceivably could use the domain name at issue in a manner that would not constitute bad faith registration and use, and as the domain name at issue has yet to be used to resolve to a web site, Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue.
The section for Registered and Used In Bad Faith is also peculiar. The three person panel says the complaint was brought prematurely “Since it is conceivable that Respondent could use the domain name in such a way that Respondent did not seek to profit from the good will attached to Complainant’s family of marks.” The panel then notes that S&P can file another UDRP should the domain owner use the domain name in bad faith.
It’s rare that a panel considers what is conceivable, and it’s surprising they didn’t address the lack of progress in turning the domain into a non-commercial website.
I’m not saying the panel got it wrong, it’s just that the full decision is rather interesting. I think some panels would have found differently.
Florida bar filed UDRP despite knowing domain name wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Castaways Bar, LLC , owner of Square Grouper Tiki Bar in Jupiter, Florida, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by filing a UDRP against SquareGrouper.com.
When the company opened its bar in 2003, SquareGrouper.com was already registered. The registrant apparently was working on a screenplay by the name Square Grouper, and had already registered a “treatment” with the Writers Guild of America West for the screenplay.
Thus, the bar ended up registering SquareGrouper.net. It says it was “forced to utilize” the domain name squaregrouper.net “due to the misappropriation and holding ‘hostage’ by the Respondent of the .com domain name”.
In other words, the respondent had already registered the domain name before Square Group Tiki Bar was in existence, so it went with the alternative .net domain name instead.
Fast forward to 2013, when a representative for the bar sent a note to the respondent that read “I see you are the owner of SquareGrouper.com and I wanted to reach to you about purchasing this domain from you. I represent Square Grouper Tiki Bar in Jupiter, FL. We have had the .net domain for a few years now but would like to get the .com as well”.
When the respondent didn’t reply, Square Group Tiki Bar filed a UDRP, a clear abuse of the proceeding:
However, in the circumstances of this case that delay leads to the conclusion that Complainant did not regard Respondent’s registration as having been made in bad faith. This in turn leads the Panel to the conclusion that, knowing that the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith, Complainant nevertheless brought this proceeding in an attempt to deprive the registrant of the Domain Name and has thereby engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Humorously, the complainant argued that the respondent “apparently routinely traffics in domain names for the purpose of speculation and resale profiteering” because it owned 22 domain names.
The bar was represented by Carl Spagnuolo of McHale & Slavin, P.A..
Company registers over 40 domains, but can’t get its hands on some key ones.
Will your Amazon.com packages be delivered by drone in the future? That’s the vision of Jeff Bezos. And millions have already watched a video (embedded below) of how Amazon envisions it working.
Amazon is pretty thorough with defensive domain name registration, and Amazon Prime Air is no exception.
I count over forty domain name registrations the company made related to Amazon Prime Air yesterday and today. The list includes many country code domain names and variations on the service, including AmazonPrimeAir.ccTLD in many ccTLDs, as well as AmazonAir.ccTLD. It also registered PrimeDrones.com as well as domains in other languages, such as primeluften.com.
But the company wasn’t able to corral a number of the most important domain names, which are already in use by other companies.
For example, PrimeAir.com is registered to HEICO Aerospace. The opposite order AirPrime.com is owned by Sierra Wireless, Inc. And AmazonAir.com is owned by a charter flight company in Venezuela.
It’s possible someone even beat the company to AmazonPrimeAir.com, which is registered with privacy at GoDaddy on November 19. Although Amazon usually registers domain names at brand protection registrar MarkMonitor, it’s possible that it stealthily registered this one at GoDaddy so no one would be tipped off about the company’s plans.
Grand Theft Auto publisher fails in case to get GTA.tv domain name.
Take-Two has a trademark for GTA, but it was unable to persuade a World Intellectual Property Organization panel that the owner was trying to take advantage of Take-Two’s mark.
iCity Corp, which owns GTA.tv, argued that the unused domain stood for “Greater Toronto Area”. iCity is based in Toronto, and previously created websites about the city at gta411.com and gtanews.com.
The panel determined that iCity has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that it didn’t register and use the domain name in bad faith.
Take-Two pointed out that iCity has a number of other domain names that seem like they might infringe on trademarks. iCity debunked most of the domain names’ similarities to trademarks. Regardless, the panel determined this was in no way a clear-cut case of cybersquatting:
The rationale of the Policy is to remedy clear cases of abusive domain name registrations. In order to maintain a balance in the system, UDRP panels are required to analyze whether the domain name owner has any rights or legitimate interests to said domain name, given the specific and very narrow nature of the Policy, and the problem it deals with. In the presence of rights or legitimate interests on the side of the Respondent, the controversy exceeds the scope of, and remedies available under the Policy.
In this case, the Respondent has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that the term GTA is used as a term related to a geographical location referring to the Greater Toronto Area, and that the inhabitants of said area use this term commonly.
This is the second UDRP the company has lost in as many months, suggesting that perhaps the tactics people use to win its video games are spill over into its intellectual property department.