[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report

[Derek Smythe]

Karl make a very good argument here, but it raises another issue.

Karl Auerbach wrote:
....
> 
> Don't forget that trademarks are a consumer protection device: they are 
> created by the law so that consumers can identify products and services 
> and distinguish those products from competing products and services.
> 
I totally agree. However we need to take that one step further into 
the cyber realm.

> .... 
> 
> Trade and service marks do not exist because of some natural law ...
Not correct, but we can take that offline if you are interested :)

The marks are all too often abused to lure the unsuspecting Internet 
user into believing he/she is dealing with that company. There is no 
real service or product behind the impostor to that brand, other than 
a strong desire to defraud the intended victim.

On the side of the mark holder, they may not chose to take steps 
against the abuse of his mark. Taking those steps will cost money. As 
such they have to weigh the consequences of not taking steps vs the 
cost of taking steps, a pure business decision. However it does not 
directly translate into the mark usage on the net.

Daily, marks and brands are being abused in scams, many belonging to 
well known companies, yet the owners do not protect these marks since 
their clients are not directly targeted.  A typical usage would be job 
scams, escrow scams or advance fee fraud where are mark is 
repetitively used, many times a complete copy of a website, with the 
pure intent of defrauding internet users.

A good example could be NatWest Bank that was spoofed 424 times for 
advance fee fraud purposes in the past few years: 
http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=natwest
(only listed spoofs we found, many may not be listed)

Likewise in no specific order, HSBC 163, London Scottish Bank (now 
closed) 78, Citi Bank 135 etc times.

Interesting point: Many times the spoof domain claimed to be based in 
a country where that bank has no presence, yet the website clearly 
showed that bank's logo.

In very few of these instances the real bank intervened, only too glad 
that somebody else was looking into it.

To just prove the impunity with which criminals abuse domains; even 
law enforcement agencies are being spoofed:
Interpol - http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=interpol
FBI - http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=fbi
United Nations - 
http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=united+nations

The mark holders cannot be blamed either. The disproportionate cost of 
defending a mark v.s. the the cost of a cheap domain with no verified 
registration data, even free domains, makes this an economically 
unfeasible exercise and no detriment to the abuser.

Sadly legitimate businesses have been forced to close doors due to 
this very problem. Many victims also exist, having lost their 
livelihood, and on the odd occasion, their lives to such usage.


Regards

Derek