Comments on: Big names may not prevail in domain disputes

Trademark holders face unaccustomed opposition in the escalating dispute over domain names, attorney Eric J. Sinrod says.

[luiz.lima]

AOL in Brazil

In 2001, AOL ridiculously won the rights to the aol.com.br domain from a Brazilian ISP when they started operations in Brazil. The ISP had been using the domain for many, many years. Additionally, the company's legal name is América Online Telecomunicações Ltda, i.e. the domain was perfectly in line with the company's name. However, with only tens of thousands of users, the ISP had no way of fighting AOL's legal team.

[system001]

about time:

it has all always been my contention that if a person finds a web site say it is www.coke.com they have the right to sell it. it should not be taken away from the person who registered it. that is theft. we need to re-visit all of the cases where a domain was taken from an individual and then given to a company just because it was their name. as far as i am concerned a domain is just like a piece of land, and it needs to be treated as such.

[wipo.org.uk]

WIPO rule makers are corrupt

I live in UK and have been communicating with lawyers, USPTO, DoC, ICANN, UN WIPO and UK Patent (and Trademark) Office on this subject for some time now.

I believe intellectual property lawyers know that UN WIPO are corrupt (for couple of reasons) and made these UDRP rules to make it easier for firms to overreach their trademark rights.

Take "(b) the domain name registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain name;"

This when you have every right to use words for any lawful purpose that you wish - though some may be against freedom of speech and your First Amendment e.g. firms that are having their name used to be complained about on the net.

Then take "(c) the domain name was registered in bad faith."

This when in every other legal action they have to PROVE any "legal wrong" they claim to have suffered at the hands of respondant.

With no infringement, tort or wrong-doing at all against the mark there is no "cause of action" - therefore 'experts' should throw out these false claims as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking attempts.

All lawyers know these cases should legally depend upon use of the domain e.g. lucasnursery.com decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this domain did not violate the law. The female owner used the name of Lucas Nursery to complain about them. Just like I use WIPO.org.uk to complain about UN WIPO.org !