[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon May 14 19:59:26 UTC 2012
Apropos to your last paragraph, you might be interested in this:
The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of
Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted
its *Final Report and
* to the ICANN Board and this document has been posted for public comment.
Note the recommendation:
The RT is in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain
agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the
and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.".
- Carlton Samuels
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Bill Silverstein
<icann-list at sorehands.com>wrote:
> I am currently litigating this issue against NameCheap. They have been
> providing proxy service for spammers.
> In the past, they had been sanctioned for failing to respond to subpoenas
> requesting information on domains that they protect for spammers.
> Since ICANN included no 3rd party beneficiary language in the
> registrar-registrant agreements, the only way to get results is to hold
> proxy service providers liable for the acts of the people they license the
> domain to.
> > 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
> > the USA).
> > 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*
> >> (1)
> >> (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
> >> watched.
> >> 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
> >>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/93228219/Louis-Vuittion-Complaint
> >>> 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
> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.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