[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites
derek at aa419.org
Mon May 14 09:25:21 UTC 2012
I know a bit about this as I have been dealing with this issue.
Actually the party registering these domains not only targets the
marks of Louis Vuitton, but also other brands like Nike, Oakley etc.
This party regularly spams forums in an effort at getting quick search
engine results. URLs would be spammed to three or four domain names at
a time per spam.
Now, quite topical and linked to the WHOIS disccusion:
This party regularly uses fake whois.
This party uses the registrar's DNS servers for his domain (some in
Where I pointed these issues out to one of the USA's largest
registrars recently, they tried fobbing it off as a trademark issue.
When I "explained" there minimal obligations to them, they turned it
into a whois issue and one the domains I mentioned later underwent I
whois change, but other discrepancies remained.
The thing is the registrant has an extensive domain portfolio and I
suspect the registrar did not want to lose this party's business.
It sure makes you think ....
On 5/14/2012 5:38 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Thanks for this Dev.
> On the bright side, these fellows are taking action in court and using
> applicable US law, not the summary extra-judicial seizures of Homeland
> Security/ICE. A third party must be convinced of the merits of the case.
> They invoked provisions of Lanham; 15 USC 1125(d), to wit:
> '(d) *Cyberpiracy prevention*
> (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark,
> including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section,
> if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—
> (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal
> name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
> (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—
> (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration
> of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
> (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of
> registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or
> dilutive of that mark; or
> (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section
> 706<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/706> of
> title 18 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18> or section
> 220506<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506> of
> title 36 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36>.'
> They 'pray' judgment on all counts as well as '*equitable relief against
> defendants*'. The judge's response to that second part is to be keenly
> While the counts could be mistakenly conflated and to ICANN's detriment,
> only one (1) of the four (4) alleged is really germane to ICANN interests;
> Count III: Claim for Relief of Cybersquatting.
> Here's what the writ of mandamus prays in respect of the 381 domains:
> "b. Entry of an order requiring the Subject Domain Names, and any
> other domain names being used by Defendants to engage in the business of
> marketing, offering to sell and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits and
> infringements of the Louis Vuitton Marks to be disabled and/or immediately
> transferred by Defendants, their Registrars and/or the Registries to Louis
> Vuitton’s control so they may no longer be used for illegal purposes.
> c. Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the top level
> domain (TLD) Registries for the Subject Domain Names and their
> administrators place the Subject Domain Names on Registry Hold status, thus
> removing them from the TLD zone files maintained by the Registries which
> link the Subject Domain Names to the IP addresses where the associated
> websites are hosted.
> d. Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, those in privity
> with Defendants and those with notice of the injunction, including any
> Internet search engines, Webhosts, domain-name registrars and
> domain-name registries or their administrators that are provided with
> notice of the injunction, cease facilitating access to any or all domain
> names and websites through which Defendants engage in the sale of
> counterfeit and infringing goods using the Louis Vuitton Marks.
> e. Entry of an order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) shall take all actions
> necessary to ensure that the Registrars and the top level domain Registries
> or their administrators responsible for the Subject Domain Names transfer,
> change the Registrar of Record, and/or disable the Subject Domain Names as
> directed by the Court. "
> Let's see what happens now.
> - Carlton
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>wrote:
>> GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds
>> of websites
>> The injunction order filed in the Florida court
>> lists the 381 domains and the filed injunction includes "..Entry of an
>> order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) shall take all actions necessary
>> to ensure that the Registrars and the top level domain Registries or
>> their administrators responsiblefor the Subject Domain Names transfer,
>> change the Registrar of Record, and/or disable the Subject Domain
>> Names as directed by the Court."
>> Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large