on 14/11/00 3:20 PM, Aristedes Maniatis at ari§ish.com.au wrote: > Perhaps someone on this list with more direct involvement in the legal > system than I, could comment on what remedies are available under Australian > law. The point where this thread commenced dealt with "blackmailing". In the cases around the globe it has been considered that there needs to be some element of bad faith. In the United Kingdom, the British Telecommunications plc & Ors v One in a Million Ltd & Ors [1998] 4 All ER 476 case set out the position well (the case is available online at http://www.butterworths.co.uk/academic/lloyd/cases/britishtelecom.htm ) The basis of the decision was that even though the Defendant had no intention to use the domain names itself, nor any interest in what use the domain names were to be put, the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief "in a passing off action where a defendant was equipped with or was intending to equip another with an instrument of fraud." The court based its decision on the fact that the domain names the subject of the dispute were registered with the intention of using them to dishonest use. That case would resolve similarly in Australia, I believe. The question that needs to be resolved is how should a domain name dispute fairly be resolved when the genuine firm "Apple Drycleaning" wishes to register the site say www.apple.mc? -----Original Message----- From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:ari§ish.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 14 November 2000 3:20 To: dns§auda.org.au Subject: Re: Study Finds Bias in Internet domain name dispute resolution on 14/11/00 1:04 PM, Patrick Corliss at patrick§quad.net.au wrote: > But if I buy all the valuable works of Picasso then I am an art collector or > an > investor. I am not a blackmailer as I am not forcing anybody to buy them off > of > me. Sometimes these overarching laws lead off in very funny places. > > And even if I did ring up Picasso and said "I've acquired some of your > paintings > legitimately, do you want to buy them back?" that's hardly a crime. That's the real problem with analogies. They don't always work. Our legal system is based on a concept of trying to compare a current situation with what has gone in the past or with something the court considers similar (precendent). In the case of domain names, there are very few precedents which add value to the discussion. We would all agree that cybersquatting is more like blackmail than it is art collection. But it isn't quite the same as stealing Microsoft's source code and then asking for a reward to keep it secret (hypothetically). > > As I understand trademark law, the problem is in "passing off" and "dilution" > of > the mark. And isn't that actionable in common law -- you can sue? Passing off is a common law action. It is has very little to do with trade marks. Trade mark infringement is based on s62(1) of the Act, to wit: Where someone else "uses a mark which is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark, in the course of trade, in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered." Clearly is it easy to side step any trade mark issues by the cybersquatter: - not engaging in trade - staying well clear of any goods or services covered under the trademark. Anyone is allowed to open "Apple Drycleaning" but "Apple Electronics" would fall foul of Apple Computer's trade mark. The problem is of course that domain names on their own carry little information about the goods or services. The web page, ftp site, or whatever would carry that information and a cybersquatter is just not going to be silly enough to put up information directly infringing a trade mark. So how do you go about proving trade mark infringement purely from the registration of a domain name? Personally I cannot see what IP rights there are over domain names. Passing off should be as easy to avoid as a trademark, and copyright just doesn't fit. Again we have a legal system content that analogies to existing law will suffice for almost any situation. There have been some large cases recently in the US, but information in the press revolves more around the size of the settlement than the issues. Perhaps someone on this list with more direct involvement in the legal system than I, could comment on what remedies are available under Australian law. Ari Maniatis > > The study found there was bias in internet domain resolution. Funny how you > want to tilt the bias even further in favour of big business trademark owners > !! > > Best regards > Patrick Corliss > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rothnie, Warwick <Warwick.Rothnie§msj.com.au> > To: <dns§auda.org.au> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:01 AM > Subject: RE: [DNS] Study Finds Bias in Internet domain name dispute resolution > > >> Mallesons Stephen Jaques >> Confidential communication >> >>> Mueller's report calls for allowing the businesses that sell domain name >> registrations, rather than challengers or domain >name registrants, to >> choose an arbitrator. >> >> Now that would be a great idea: put the mice in charge of looking after the >> cheese and the fox in charge of the henhouse! >> >> What we should really do is introduce an anti-cybersquatter law modelled on >> the US one with statutory damages (one case recently awarded $500,000) and >> cybersquatters would start to realise that blackmail has consequences. >> >> Warwick A Rothnie >> Partner >> Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne >> Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 >> Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David.Goldstein§sbg.nic.at [mailto:David.Goldstein§sbg.nic.at] >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 November 2000 3:35:AM >> To: dns§auda.org.au >> Subject: [DNS] Study Finds Bias in Internet domain name dispute >> resolution >> >> >> I came across this article today and it might interest those on this list. >> >> Cheers >> David >> >> Study Finds Bias in Internet domain name dispute resolution >> (Convergence Center, Syracuse University news release) 9Nov >> http://dcc.syr.edu/udrpnews.htm >> The international method of resolving disputes over Internet domain names >> favors trademark holders over those seeking to register an Internet site, >> according to a study by researchers at Syracuse University's School of >> Information Studies. The study was released Nov. 9 by the school's >> Convergence Center. While the guidelines developed by ICANN are "robust and >> fair," both the interpretation of the guidelines and a clause that allows >> trademark holders to shop around for the most favorable arbitrators has >> resulted in a system that is biased against Internet domain name >> registrants, says Milton Mueller, professor and director of the Convergence >> Center. >> >> The report 'Rough Justice' is available in both html and pdf versions. See >> http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm or http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.pdf >> > > > -- > This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without > express permission of the author. You don't know who really wrote it. > 364 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns) > Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed. > --------------------------> ish group pty ltd 7 Darghan St Glebe 2037 Australia phone +61 2 9660 1400 fax +61 2 9660 7400 email info§ish.com.au PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2 A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8 -- This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without express permission of the author. You don't know who really wrote it. 364 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns) Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.Received on Tue Nov 14 2000 - 13:35:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC