[At-Large] Definition of registration abuse

[Evan Leibovitch]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> John R. Levine wrote:
>>> As long as it takes.  Otherwise we will have a system in which a
>>> mere accusation is sufficient.
>>
>> Do you really think it is a good idea to require a court case and a
>> trial to take down a phish site pretending to be Paypal or the Bank
>> of America?
>
> How does one know that a particular web site is "a phish site
> pretending to be Paypal or the Bank of America"?  Perhaps it is
> operating under a license?  Perhaps it is a permissible parody.

You're both right.

We can have guidelines set down -- that are adequately narrow -- to move
in an expedited fashion. But even so, I agree that basic fundamentals of
justice, such as the right to confront and challenge one's accuser, must
be followed. Think of the process used to get a pre-trial injunction,
which requires far more than a simple accusation but is not a full trial.

Legitimate players (parody, criticism sites, etc) should have a fairly
easy and accessible process to challenge a preliminary shutdown order.
Most bad players would take the site down and move on rather than
challenge an accusation; they don't even want to be identified.

There can also be a regime in place that clearly indicates the
disclaimer required by parody and criticism (ie, "this brand suck"
sites) in order to provide an immediately recognized defence against
preliminary takedown attempts.

The key, at least to me, is to continue to recall first principles of
why trademarks were created -- to protect the consumer. If we continue
to look at -- and press for -- the consumer centric POV of trademark
protection, we'll be more clear and less defensive in our approach.

- Evan