Free for a Fee

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Berhad v. GoDaddy, C 09-5939 PJH (N.D. Cal.; Jan. 3, 2012)

Plaintiff, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), a government owned entity, owns the Petronas Towers in Malaysia. It’s trying to enforce its trademark rights against two domain names (petronastowers.net and petronastower.net). In mid-2010, it quickly obtained relief against both domain names, via in rem actions. These aren’t the disputes before the court. Prior to obtaining in rem relief against the domain names, Petronas urged GoDaddy to disable the website and domain names (the domain names were registered to GoDaddy and GoDaddy provided forwarding services, which pointed the domain names to porn sites). GoDaddy demurred, stating that as the registrar, it could not adjudicate Petronas’s cybersquatting claim and since it did not host the underlying sites, it couldn’t process Petronas’s trademark infringement claim. Petronas is trying to hold GoDaddy liable for not ‘disabling’ the domain name and website at Petronas’s urging. It asserted claims for cybersquatting and contributory cybersquatting against GoDaddy. Its hook for trying to hold GoDaddy liable? GoDaddy “used” the domain names by providing forwarding services for its customers.

Cybersquatting claim:

Contributory Cybersquatting:

Cancellation of Petronas’s Mark:

More

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/01/trademark_owner_1.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

A federal judge in Seattle on Wednesday issued an interesting decision concerning cybersquatting, the act of setting up sites with the intent of selling the domain names, or, more pertinently, setting up sites with URLs that are a typo or two away from those of popular sites.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/01/14/on-microsoft-and-contributory-cybersquatting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., 1:07-cv-03371 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2010). My 2007 blog post when the complaint was filed. My 2008 blog post on the denial of a motion to dismiss. My 2008 blog post on denial of class certification.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/google_cant_sha.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

I recently spoke on a panel about search engines and the law at SMX West. I previewed four major trends in search engine law to watch in 2010:

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/smx_west_law_an.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

A gripe site that incorporates a company’s entire trademark into its domain is still protected under the First Amendment, a US District Judge has ruled. In the case of Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, the judge said that the gripe site made no effort to bolster its own business and was noncommercial, therefore protecting it from Career Agents Network’s trademark claims and cybersquatting accusations.

The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

The content in this post was found at http://ptlawfirm.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/cybersquatters-sit-on-personal-names-in-spite-of-federal-law-barring-practice/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

The content in this post was found at http://braniganlaw.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/cybersquatting-disgruntled-employee/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

The content in this post was found at http://fiusels.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/chris-bosh-wins-cybersquatting-case/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Domain name investing has been around almost as long as domain names were open for purchase by the general public, and the practice has picked up since the mid-90s, as companies stake out their spot on the digital frontier. Domain names can be so valuable, in fact, that people actually steal them to sell to unsuspecting companies or other domain name investors. The legal process to combat a domain name thief is complicated at best, but there is hope, as police have arrested a man accused of stealing the domain P2P.com.

An initial investigation by Florida police, where the victims reside, was dropped for lack of evidence. The rightful owners of P2P.com then filed a civil suit as they believed it was their only recourse. However, Detective Sergeant John Gorman of the New Jersey State Police Cyber-Crimes Unit later reviewed the case, and asked the victims if they wanted to pursue the case in New Jersey, where the alleged thief lived. Based on evidence gathered for the civil suit, the NJ District Attorney approved an indictment. On July 30, Daniel Goncalves, a 25-year-old computer technician for a NJ law firm, was arrested at his home and his computers were seized.

The first-ever criminal arrest for domain name theft has been made in the great state of New Jersey.

The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Solid Host, NL v. NameCheap, Inc., 2:08-cv-05414-MMM-E (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2009)

Facts

This case involves an alleged domain name theft. Solid Host is a web host and initial owner of the domain name solidhost.com, which it registered through eNom in 2004. Solid Host claims that in 2008, a security breach at eNom allowed an unknown interloper (Doe) to steal the domain name and move the registration to NameCheap. Doe also acquired NameCheap’s “WhoisGuard” service, a domain name proxy service that masked Doe’s contact information in the Whois database. Solid Host contacted Doe and sought the domain name; Doe asked for ,000, and Solid Host took a pass. Instead, Solid Host demanded that NameCheap hand back the domain name and identify Doe, but Doe claimed that he had bought the domain name legitimately. NameCheap, apparently feeling like the cheese in a sandwich, demurred to Solid Host’s requests. Solid Host then got a TRO ordering NameCheap to transfer the name and reveal Doe’s identity, both of which occurred. For unclear reasons, Solid Host hasn’t amended the complaint to name the Doe, but it is proceeding against NameCheap on various claims, including an Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claim.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/05/contributory_cy_1.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.