Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"
Company goes after alleged cybersquatters of its adult site brands.
The company behind PornHub.com, RedTube.com and YouPorn.com has filed multiple lawsuits in U.S. District court against the owners of at least ten domain names it alleges are cybersquatting on its brands. The lawsuit was filed by Licensing IP International S.à.r.l., which is commonly known as MindGeek.
Targeted in the suits are typos, country codes and other domains that contain its brands: PoernHub.com, PornGub.com, RedTube.cc YouPorn.fm, Yyouporn.net, Youupornhub.com, Youpornstop.com, Zaxredtube.com, Youpornespanol.com and Youporn.com.bz.
MindGeek filed the cases (pdf) against DOES, saying it doesn’t know who is behind the domain names. The suit mentions the use of whois privacy, but doesn’t say specifically that the owners of these domain names are using whois privacy services.
In fact, the owner of PornGub.com is not using whois privacy, and its contact information is clearly listed.
The company is seeking control of the domain names and a penalty of $100,000 under the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Act.
Brands owners benefit from whois privacy, even though they’d prefer their adversaries not be able to use it.
There’s a common myth in intellectual property circles that, if it weren’t for whois privacy and proxy services, there would be a lot less bad stuff on the internet.
I can bust a hole right in the myth. But instead, I’d like to point out something these companies don’t often admit: they are some of the biggest users of whois privacy.
I was reminded of this while reviewing some notes from a recent .NYC Advisory Board meeting. .NYC doesn’t allow registrants to use whois privacy. That’s why, when two firms working on behalf of Michael Bloomberg registered a bunch of embarrassing domain names, I was able to easily find out who was behind it. During the meeting, someone pointed out that Bloomberg’s lawyers had to register the domains in their name, which ended up being rather embarrassing for them. Click here to continue reading…
Whois verification is just begging for phishers.
A lot has been made about the new requirement this year for domain name registrars to verify certain aspects of Whois contact information provided by registrations.
Over a million domain names have been suspended due to the failure by the owner to click a link in an email sent by the registrar for a domain name.
But don’t click to quickly. It might be a phishing attempt.
In fact, the way it’s set up, this verification process was basically begging for phishers to get on board. Here’s an email I received this morning: Click to continue reading…
Lawsuit says three three-number domain names were stolen from an eNom account.
A federal lawsuit alleges that the domain names 224.com, 605.com and 452.com have been stolen.
Ian Andrew of Traffic Names, Ltd filed an in rem action (pdf) against the domain names in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Traffic Names alleges that it is the rightful owner of the domain names and that they were stolen from its eNom domain name registrar account.
According to the suit, the plaintiff became aware of the theft after one of the domains was listed for sale. The thief allegedly tried to sell 605.com through 4.cn, and 4.cn noticed the recent domain name ownership change. The company contacted Traffic Names to make the company aware.
Guy files trademarks matching names of celebrities, major brands and their domain names.
A couple weeks ago I wrote about Trademark King, Inc. The Indiana company had filed a trademark on Trademarking.com, a domain name owned by domain investor Rick Schwartz.
When I reached out to Douglas Lehocky, the person listed on the trademark applications, he told me it didn’t matter if someone else owned the domain name Trademarking.com. If he got the trademark first, he had rights to the domain names. He would have his lawyer have the domain taken down. He also told me he buys and sells trademarks, so he knows what he’s talking about.
Pretty stupid, but it was just one misguided trademark application. Until now.
I just checked recent USPTO trademark applications, and here’s what I saw: Click here to continue reading…