Domain name – At Card Loan http://atcardloan.com/ Wed, 25 May 2022 15:18:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://atcardloan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/atcard.png Domain name – At Card Loan http://atcardloan.com/ 32 32 Another company is entering the blockchain domain game – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/another-company-is-entering-the-blockchain-domain-game-domain-name-wire/ Wed, 25 May 2022 13:18:48 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/another-company-is-entering-the-blockchain-domain-game-domain-name-wire/ Where have I seen this idea before? Quik is the latest group to offer alt-root domain names Another group throws its hat in the ring to come up with blockchain-based domain names. Quik launches 10 alt-root domain name extensions, including .metaverse, .vr, .chain, .address, .i, .bored, .dog, .shib, .btc, and .web3. The company’s model most […]]]>

Where have I seen this idea before?

Quik is the latest group to offer alt-root domain names

Another group throws its hat in the ring to come up with blockchain-based domain names.

Quik launches 10 alt-root domain name extensions, including .metaverse, .vr, .chain, .address, .i, .bored, .dog, .shib, .btc, and .web3.

The company’s model most closely resembles Unstoppable Domains, which offers domains ending in extensions such as .crypto, .bitcoin, and .x.

The domains of Quik and Unstoppable do not overlap, although nothing prevents either company from offering identical top-level domains.

After reading the Quik whitepaper, I don’t understand why anyone would register these domains.

The white paper (pdf) states:

These NFT domains are not part of ICANN and traditional DNS and should never be compared to a traditional domain name.

So why call them domains? And why say they have similar uses, such as for use with websites?

For a Quik domain to resolve or connect to a wallet, users will need to download a browser extension or browser that does not yet exist.

Oh, and people in the US can’t buy the domains, according to the Quik whitepaper.

Besides Quik and Unstoppable Domains, the other major blockchain domain systems are Ethereum Name Service and Handshake. Both suffer from significant drawbacks that will make adoption difficult. They also don’t seem to offer much that existing “real” domains don’t.

These domainless domains therefore have many disadvantages but few advantages. It seems the main reason people buy these domains is because they think they can sell them to someone else for more money who thinks they can sell them to someone else for more of money who thinks they will be able to sell them to someone else for more money…

]]>
Camco Manufacturing Fails Again With New Cybersquatting Litigation – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/camco-manufacturing-fails-again-with-new-cybersquatting-litigation-domain-name-wire/ Tue, 24 May 2022 17:55:45 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/camco-manufacturing-fails-again-with-new-cybersquatting-litigation-domain-name-wire/ The National Arbitration Forum gives the company a second bite of the apple, but it fails again. Camco had a “second bite of apple” but still lost. Camco Manufacturing, Inc. failed a second time to obtain the domain name Camco.com via a UDRP. The company, which uses the camco.net domain, filed its first UDRP against […]]]>

The National Arbitration Forum gives the company a second bite of the apple, but it fails again.

Camco had a “second bite of apple” but still lost.

Camco Manufacturing, Inc. failed a second time to obtain the domain name Camco.com via a UDRP.

The company, which uses the camco.net domain, filed its first UDRP against the domain in 2011. It had no registered trademarks at the time, nor does it allege common law rights. He lost the UDRP, but for some reason the National Arbitration Forum panel said the case was dismissed “without prejudice.”

So Camco tried again in 2022, this time armed with federal trademark registrations.

But the panel once again sided with estate owner Brian Wick. Wick successfully argued that he had legitimate rights or interests in the area.

The panel wrote:

… Irrespective of Plaintiff’s trademark rights, the Panel – based on its assessment of the extensive evidence presented by Respondent – ​​agrees with Respondent that the term “camco” is a commonly used term. Indeed, the term was commonly used by several parties at the time the domain was registered. Further, Complainant has not provided any evidence to show that Respondent was targeting Complainant specifically or that Respondent had reason to expect Complainant to have exclusive rights to the term when the disputed domain name has been registered. And even now, the plaintiff’s rights are not exclusive, except with respect to the limited class of goods for which the mark was registered.

Respondent presents ample evidence showing that many third parties have rights and a legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”. The Panel finds that Respondent also has a legitimate right and interest to use the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights. Indeed, according to WIPO’s Overview 3.0, Section 2.1, “generally speaking, panels accepted that the aggregation and holding of domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common expressions may be bona fide and are not inherently illegitimate under the UDRP.

Respondent further submits that it has legitimate rights and interests in the domain name by the nature of its business of buying and selling generic domain names. Respondent provided evidence containing, among other things, screenshots of its business at , the center of Respondent’s trading network of generic domain names for sale. Under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, previous panels have concluded that the resale of generic domain names is considered a bona fide offer of goods or services. See Alphalogix Inc. v. DNS Servs., FA 491557 (Forum July 26, 2005) (“Defendant is in the business of creating and supplying names for new entities, including acquiring expired domain names…

Tuggle Duggins PA represented Camco Manufacturing in both disputes.

]]>
Why didn’t the trademark owner just say what happened? – Domain name thread https://atcardloan.com/why-didnt-the-trademark-owner-just-say-what-happened-domain-name-thread/ Fri, 20 May 2022 14:52:44 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/why-didnt-the-trademark-owner-just-say-what-happened-domain-name-thread/ The Complainants in this UDRP should have explained the circumstances to the panelist. There is more to this story, but the Complainant did not elaborate on it for the panelist. I am puzzled after reading a UDRP decision (pdf) for bewellbydrfranklipman.com. The plaintiff, Dr. Frank Lipman of Be Well Health & Wellness, filed a lawsuit […]]]>

The Complainants in this UDRP should have explained the circumstances to the panelist.

There is more to this story, but the Complainant did not elaborate on it for the panelist.

I am puzzled after reading a UDRP decision (pdf) for bewellbydrfranklipman.com.

The plaintiff, Dr. Frank Lipman of Be Well Health & Wellness, filed a lawsuit against the estate in March. He cited a trademark registration filed in 2011, citing the first use on May 25, 2011.

The domain was registered on March 23, 2011, two months before the first claimed commercial use.

For some reason, the Complainant did not explain these dates. Why did someone register the domain two months before the plaintiffs filed this very specific trademark?

The domain owner did not respond to the case. Panelist Georges Nahitchevansky therefore had nothing to base himself on to determine the dates. He correctly assumed that there was “more to the story”, but he needed the plaintiff to show what the “more” was:

Nevertheless, it does not seem fortuitous that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name using the same wording and the same name as those which appeared in BE WELL BY DR. Mark FRANK LIPMAN approximately two months before the Complainant or its interested predecessor began to use the mark. It therefore appears to the Panel that there may be more to this story than the limited evidence that Complainant has provided. In particular, the Panel notes that the Complainant (i) has not produced any evidence demonstrating actual use of the mark BE WELL BY DR FRANK LIPMAN since May 25, 2011 (date of the first claimed use of the mark), (ii) n provided no explanation regarding the registration or past use of the disputed domain name, (iii) provided no evidence tending to show that the Complainant could have established common law rights in the BE WELL BY DR. Brand FRANK LIPMAN or DR. FRANK LIPMAN before the date of registration of the disputed domain name, and (iv) made no offer regarding the initial registration of the disputed domain name or anything that might have happened with the disputed domain after it was registered in March 2011.

A little dig shows what happened. The plaintiffs registered the domain in March 2011. They started using it to promote their services soon after. Then he let the domain expire last year. Due to the site’s history, it sold for $750 at GoDaddy auction. The new buyer has set up a site promoting CBD that mimics the brand.

The. Was it so difficult for the complainant to explain? Maybe he thought the panel would say he lost his rights by letting the domain expire. But that’s not how it works; Just because a person lets a domain corresponding to their trademark expire does not mean that they lose their rights to the trademark.

Nahitchevansky made the rare move of dismissing the case without prejudice, suggesting that the plaintiff refile proof that the domain was transferred after it was initially registered. Plaintiff’s attorneys at Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC would be wise to accept this offer and not charge their clients for the extra work.

]]>
20 End User Domain Name Sales – NFT Businesses and More – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/20-end-user-domain-name-sales-nft-businesses-and-more-domain-name-wire/ Thu, 19 May 2022 13:40:41 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/20-end-user-domain-name-sales-nft-businesses-and-more-domain-name-wire/ NFT companies, a housing authority and a brand of running tights have bought domain names. I found a lot of end-user sales on Sedo’s sales list this week. The best seller of the week was HomeSA.com, which was acquired through the SedoMLS network. Here is a list of end user domain name sales that have […]]]>

NFT companies, a housing authority and a brand of running tights have bought domain names.

I found a lot of end-user sales on Sedo’s sales list this week. The best seller of the week was HomeSA.com, which was acquired through the SedoMLS network.

Here is a list of end user domain name sales that have just ended at Sedo. You can check out previous lists like this here.

HomeSA.com $26,000 – San Antonio Housing Authority is a large organization in San Antonio that provides affordable housing. The agency employs over 500 people and has an annual operating budget of $185 million. His website is saha.org.

AAds.com $25,050 – This is an upgrade for A-Ads.com, a crypto advertising network website.

Tokeneer.com $12,345 – Tokeneer lets you create NFTs instantly. How’s that for a sale price?

OpenLinkProfiler.org £10,099 – This is a backlink checker. It was an active website and I don’t know if the buyer acquired the entire site.

BarJRanch.com $9,995 – The buyer is the co-founder of a private equity fund. The domain could be for a project outside the fund. It sounds like the name of a neighborhood.

Vitamines.com €8,888 – The buyer creates a site on vitamins. The estate is Dutch for vitamins.

Stoko.com $8,500 – Stoko is a brand of running tights.

Stride.tech $7,999 – Stride is a software development company. It forwards this domain to Stridenyc.com.

TalentJet.com $6,495 – TalentJet is a recruitment company.

RSMGlobal.com $5,000 – RSM International is a conglomerate of accounting firms, making it the 6th largest accounting consultancy in the world. Its main website is RSM.global, so it looks like a defensive registration.

GoodTrip.co.uk £4,975 – Good Trip sells eco-friendly travel gear.

JCLMM.com €4,000 – This is the abbreviation for Journal of Coastal Life Medicine, a scientific journal.

Wepal.com €4,000 – Cabinet Germain et Maureau is a law firm in France. I don’t know what this is for; it could be for a client.

Galero.com €3,900 – Grupo Galero supplies spare parts for heavy machinery (think Caterpillar machines). It forwards this domain to GrupoGalero.com.

Geschenk-online.de €3,888 – This is a typo from geschenke-online.de, a freebie site. It forwards to the correct domain.

ClimateGovernance.org $3,880 – Not sure what to think. The domain forwards to a report on climate governance from the World Economic Forum. The domain has been registered with Namecheap and has Whois privacy.

Flexs.com $2,500 – Flexs is kind of an NFT project.

Legal.us $2,500 – Taroko is a mobile app builder. Some of its apps include LegalTemplates.net and Termly, a tool for creating terms and conditions. I think the buyer got a good deal.

ModernBench.com $2,464 – Workshop is a Detroit-based manufacturer of reclaimed wood tables and benches.

Synda.com $2,000 – This domain is short for Syndacart, a coupon code plugin. The domain is transferred to Syndacart.com.

]]>
How to protect your domain name against trademark infringement? https://atcardloan.com/how-to-protect-your-domain-name-against-trademark-infringement/ Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:49 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/how-to-protect-your-domain-name-against-trademark-infringement/ It takes considerable effort, time and money to start a new business and promote its brand to entrepreneurs. However, many business owners neglect to do an exhaustive search for already registered trademarks. Often, they end up registering identical marks to those already used in the market. They may receive cease and desist letters or even […]]]>

It takes considerable effort, time and money to start a new business and promote its brand to entrepreneurs. However, many business owners neglect to do an exhaustive search for already registered trademarks. Often, they end up registering identical marks to those already used in the market. They may receive cease and desist letters or even a legal notice to cease using the mark in connection with their domain name or website.

In the worst case, businesses can lose their website or domain name due to failure to follow these legal warnings. To make sure the name you selected does not infringe on someone else’s existing trademark, you should continue reading this article. It helps to understand that no one has ever claimed your brand name or a similar mark to confuse the public in the market.

What is the amount of domain name infringement?

A website’s domain name or URL is the Internet address that uniquely identifies the website. It is permitted to incorporate branded terms or phrases into the domain name of a website. However, it also creates the possibility for a website’s domain name to violate the subject.

For example, if a website’s domain name contains the term “GOCCI”, it can be accused of trademark infringement against the famous fashion brand “GUCCI”.

Additionally, domain names that are confusing with comparable branded content can be used to establish trademark infringement. Thus, a fashion brand website that contains the term ‘GUCCI’ may also be subject to copyright regulations, as a customer may confuse ‘GOCCI’ with ‘GUCCI’. Even though the two words are spelled differently, the main consideration is whether the domain name will confuse the customer.

How to select a non-infringing domain name

Here are some basic points that should be considered before selecting a domain name:

  1. Must have basic knowledge of trademark law

To understand how to select a domain name that does not infringe another’s trademark, it is essential to know the basic principles of trademark law.

  1. A trademark is a term, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, logos or designs, that identifies and differentiates the source of one party’s goods from those of other parties. A service mark is similar to a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the service provider, not a product.
  2. Trademarks are not legally protected if their use creates uncertainty or confusion in the minds of consumers about the product or service or the source of the goods or services provided.
  • Anyone who uses a mark that deceptively resembles an already existing mark with the intention of creating confusion about the goods or their source will be required to cease using the mark and may be required to pay compensation to the owner of the mark. .

So when selecting a domain name that does not infringe on another party’s trademark, you should choose a word, phrase, symbol, or design (or a mixture of these) that accurately describes your products and does not confuse potential consumers.

  1. Trademark search

A business must conduct thorough trademark research to balance the requirement to find a distinctive domain name with the need to respect the rights of trademark owners. By performing a trademark search, the business has access to all registered and pending trademarks. Businesses should research not only the proposed trademark, but also similar trademarks, such as synonyms and alternate spellings. If a business search finds names that are identical or nearly identical to the proposed domain name, the entrepreneur should consider the following:

Several factors to consider to prevent domain name counterfeiting include:

  • Does your website offer goods or services comparable to those offered by the trademark owner?
  • Would a buyer use your domain name when searching online for the other company?
  • Whether your company distributes or sells a product through similar distribution channels?
  • If the name of the rival company is very well known?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, trademark infringement may be possible.

To ensure that the domain name chosen or desired by your business does not infringe on an existing trademark, your attorney should conduct a thorough trademark search. Trademark research includes identifying similar domain names to ensure that no one has registered the name or a similar name that could confuse current and potential customers. In addition, many terms and expressions can be deposited without being officially registered. On the whole, trademark protection is acquired through use, whether the product is registered or not. Before attempting to acquire a potentially confusing domain name, it may be essential to do some research before using the trademark as a domain name.

What options are available in the event of a domain name violation?

If the other party’s domain name is confusing with your trademark, it may be a trademark infringement. If you find a potentially infringing domain name, you may be able to seek legal redress in one of the following ways:

  1. Seek advice from a trademark expert:

It is always prudent to seek expert advice if you believe your trademark has been infringed. An intellectual property lawyer will tell you about your options for taking action against your domain name infringement and advise you on how to enforce your rights.

  1. Sending the Cease and Desist Letter:

With the help of an intellectual property expert, you can send a cease and desist letter to the infringer to stop the trademark infringement on your website. It is recommended to seek the assistance of a trademark attorney when drafting such a letter.

  1. Filing a Civil Complaint:

A civil suit can be brought in court against the domain name holder, asking the court to make an order to remove the domain name or to transfer that domain name to the trademark owner.

  1. Out of Court Settlement – ​​Arbitration and Mediation

Arbitration or mediation is often effective in resolving the breach in some cases.

Arbitration

Arbitration, in general, is a less formal, faster and less costly procedure than court proceedings, and an arbitral award is more easily enforced internationally.

Mediation

One of the benefits of mediation is that the parties retain control of the dispute resolution process. As such, it can help maintain a positive business relationship with another business that your business may collaborate with in the future.

Do I need legal counsel to resolve domain name infringement?

Choosing the right domain name is crucial for the growth of any online business venture. You can contact a professional intellectual property attorney like HHS Lawyers and Legal Consultants if you need legal help or advice about domain name infringement. Although domain name infringement is a serious offense, many safeguards are available to owners of branded content. Alternatively, you can contact experts if you need help filing an infringement lawsuit to defend your website.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the subject. The content mentioned in the article is not intended to interpret legal advice. For your specific situation, do not hesitate to contact us today.

]]>
Here’s What People Think About UDRP – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/heres-what-people-think-about-udrp-domain-name-wire/ Tue, 17 May 2022 18:05:08 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/heres-what-people-think-about-udrp-domain-name-wire/ A diverse group of people have commented on the UDRP as the review of rights protections progresses. A few weeks ago, I published an article about the end of the public comment period for ICANN’s “State of the UDRP Report”, including a summary of comments from Internet Commerce Association. ICANN has now released a Final […]]]>

A diverse group of people have commented on the UDRP as the review of rights protections progresses.

A few weeks ago, I published an article about the end of the public comment period for ICANN’s “State of the UDRP Report”, including a summary of comments from Internet Commerce Association.

ICANN has now released a Final Public Comment Report, which provides context for Phase 2 of the review of all rights protection mechanisms in all gTLDs.

A quick scan of the 44 comments suggests that stakeholders fall into three main groups:

1) the UDRP is fine as is

2) the UDRP should be completely overhauled

3) UDRP is OK but could be improved.

The opinions of domainers fall into the second and third camps. I fall into the third but I would be willing to use “as is” to avoid opening a Pandora’s box.

The report also summarizes some proposed amendments to the UDRP. My comments are in parentheses:

  • change the requirement for bad faith registration and bad faith use to bad faith registration or bad faith use (this is the intellectual property owner’s dream; they could come after valuable domains registered before their brand doesn’t exist. A National Arbitration Forum panelist is among those offering this, so be careful if he shows up on one of your cases.)
  • allowing proceedings in the language spoken by the domain holder (currently there are some protections depending on where the domain is registered.)
  • eliminate proof of registrant bad faith as a mandatory requirement for a complaint under the UDRP (I have to ignore actual comments proposing this, but some complainants say it can be difficult to prove the state of mind of the registrant when registering a domain.)
  • expanding the scope of action of panels to adjudicate on other remedies sought by trademark owners, such as remedies and pecuniary awards and reimbursement of costs to the
    plaintiffs (obtaining money from unknown domain owners will be difficult, but what about penalties for RDNH? I would also be open to the possibility of panelists ordering the domain owner to modify the use of the domain that stops before ordering a transfer. Currently, the decisions are binary: transfer or not transfer.)

This report launches the next phase of the review of rights protection mechanisms. After some complaints (including from WIPO itself) regarding the scope and intent of the charter during Phase 1, the GNSO is expected to review and revise the charter before officially launching Phase 2.

Refining the questions and bringing the right people to the table could greatly benefit the work that follows. As the ICA pointed out, there are fruits at hand that could improve the UDRP all around.

]]>
Hey Crypto Companies: You MUST Use Registry Lock – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/hey-crypto-companies-you-must-use-registry-lock-domain-name-wire/ Mon, 16 May 2022 14:24:50 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/hey-crypto-companies-you-must-use-registry-lock-domain-name-wire/ Registry Lock would have likely prevented two recent crypto attacks. Companies that deal in cryptocurrencies are actually financial institutions, and they need to take extra precautions to prevent domain hijacking. Last week, SpiritSwap said a hacker had “succeeded in exploiting GoDaddy, basically they hijacked our domain and copied our codebase” to trick users into sending […]]]>

Registry Lock would have likely prevented two recent crypto attacks.

Companies that deal in cryptocurrencies are actually financial institutions, and they need to take extra precautions to prevent domain hijacking.

Last week, SpiritSwap said a hacker had “succeeded in exploiting GoDaddy, basically they hijacked our domain and copied our codebase” to trick users into sending trades to another wallet.

As Molly White of Web 3 is Going Just Great notes, this is likely a case of stolen credentials, not a GoDaddy exploit. Ditto for an attack the previous week involving an MM .finance, a domain at Namecheap.

If a name server change or domain theft can have a direct impact on financial transactions, companies that manage these businesses should use Registry Lock. Registry Lock is a service offered by domain name registries through registrars. Most Registry Lock products prevent users from transferring a domain or changing its nameservers without going through a multi-step process involving both the registrar and the registry.

In the case of Registry Lock on .com domains, which are operated by Verisign, a domain owner who wishes to change their nameservers must first contact their registrar. This would trigger a process where the registry manually verifies the request.

Not all registries offer Registry Lock, and not all registrars offer it even when the registry does. Donuts, which runs .finance, doesn’t offer it. I would expect him to offer it in the future because Afilias, which Donuts acquired in 2020, offered it.

When I last checked two years ago, GoDaddy didn’t offer Registry Lock, but it does offer TLD-agnostic services that might help prevent theft or hacking.

]]>
Domain Name Registrars and Their Role in Domain Name Infringement Lawsuits https://atcardloan.com/domain-name-registrars-and-their-role-in-domain-name-infringement-lawsuits/ Mon, 16 May 2022 09:44:24 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/domain-name-registrars-and-their-role-in-domain-name-infringement-lawsuits/ Introduction In the recent case of Snapdeal Pvt. ltd. v. Come on dad. Com LLC and Ors a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by an order dated April 18, 2022, while ruling on the provisional application, explored various provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (‘Trademark Law‘) and the Information Technology Act 2000 […]]]>

Introduction

In the recent case of Snapdeal Pvt. ltd. v. Come on dad. Com LLC and Ors a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by an order dated April 18, 2022, while ruling on the provisional application, explored various provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (‘Trademark Law‘) and the Information Technology Act 2000 (‘IT law‘) to determine whether domain name registrars (‘DNR‘, ‘Defendants‘) can be qualified as alleged infringers, because they offer, for registration, domain names similar to those of Snapdeal (‘Applicant‘) registered trademarks.

The plaintiff had filed a complaint with an interim application, requesting a quia timet injunction and temporary injunction against DNRs, to prevent them from registering domain names deceptively similar to that of the applicant. Plaintiff argued that due to the fast and dynamic nature of the Internet, prosecuting each individual infringer who registers an infringing domain name was highly impractical. Therefore, a futuristic general order was essential to safeguard the plaintiff’s exclusive rights. The defendants, on the other hand, objected to such categorization. It was argued that under computer law, the defendants are mere intermediaries who provide a recording platform. They are therefore protected by the safe harbor provided for in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The real infringers, according to the defendants, are the domain name registrants who applied for the registration of a domain name deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.

The Court dealt with the case in depth and analyzed the TM Act and the IT Act to determine whether the defendants qualified as “intermediaries” under the law and, if so, whether they could claim the protection provided for in article 79 of the computer law. Law.

Summary of the case

Plaintiff was the registered owner of the SNAPDEAL marks and had been using them since 2010. The prolonged use of said mark has enabled Plaintiff to establish the notoriety and reputation of said marks.

Subsequently, several third parties were seen registering deceptively similar domain names that included the thread/word “SNAPDEAL”, with the alleged ulterior motive of taking advantage of the goodwill and well-established reputation of the applicant. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants permitted such registrations and therefore facilitated the infringement of its marks. This authorization thus made the defendants infringers under Articles 28 and 29 of the Trademark Law.

Defendants objected to allegations of being involved in any type of trademark infringement, as Defendants were mere intermediaries who provided a platform for the registration of domain names and therefore protected under Section 79 computer law.

The Court, in this detailed order, denied Plaintiff’s request for an omnibus order prohibiting Defendants from offering domain names containing the word “SNAPDEAL”. Yet the Court ruled that the defendants would not benefit from the protection of the “safe harbour” under Article 79 of the Computer Law if they continued to provide alternative domain names, for commercial purposes, that infringe trademarks.

Detailed observation of the Court on the issues identified:

(i) whether the defendants are “intermediaries”

The Court provided a clear and elaborate interpretation of the word “intermediaries” under the Information Technology Act and examined the term “regarding” as used in the definition of intermediaries and concluded that the same required a broad and concise interpretation. It was concluded that the scope of the term “electronic records” used in the definition of intermediaries would include the service of providing electronic records for use by applicants for registration. The domain names, particularly those provided by intermediaries, were therefore classified as electronic records under Section 2(1)

(ii) on the provision of brokerage services by the defendants

The Court agreed with the defendants that there was no legal prohibition on the provision of brokerage services by the defendants. However, the benefit of the “safe harbour” under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act will not extend to these services.

iii) on the supply of domain names containing ‘SNAPDEAL’

The Court noted that defendants are acting commercially for profit when they provide alternative domain names for a fee. Thus, by providing domain names and offering registration of the SNAPDEAL yarn at a higher price, defendants were enabling infringement and causing infringement of plaintiff’s rights under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trademark Act.

iv) on “safe harbour” under section 79 of the Information Technology Act

The Court observed that if the services provided by the intermediary are superior to those offered in the natural course, such as the offer of alternative options in the present case, they cannot be entitled to the benefit of the “sphere security” Section 79(1) of the Computers Act.

(v) technological limitation for the Defendants to limit certain domain names containing an offer thread or word to aspiring registrants

The Court refused to accept the defendants’ assertion that the process of providing domain names was automated and could not be guaranteed to secure alternative options that did not infringe any trademarks. The fact that the defendants offered no alternative to their own “GoDaddy” brand indicated that modulation of the algorithm was possible. The Court ordered that either the algorithm for offering alternative domain names be changed or Defendants must cease offering such options.

vi) on the prohibition on DNRs from providing, in the future, to any future registrant, any domain name containing “SNAPDEAL” as quia timet

The Court held that it was contrary to the principle of justice to consider that any other domain name containing the word “SNAPDEAL” was of an infringing nature and therefore inadmissible. However, such an order can only be considered a remedy when the plaintiff is aware that an individual/entity is likely to launch a counterfeit product.

Analysis

The plaintiff in this case argued for a blanket order to stop the endless struggle of trademark owners vis à vis individuals infringing on their marks by using similar marks to fraudulently exploit the goodwill associated with those marks. The solution proposed by the applicant was to obtain a temporary preventive injunction against the fraudulent registration of any domain name by any natural person/entity incorporating its trademarks.

One of the reasons behind the plaintiff’s request for an omnibus order could be the very availability of similar/identical domain name suggestions to the registered trademarks which in turn induce registrants to purchase the same in order to increase, directly or indirectly, the visibility of their business. in the global space and capture a wider audience. Additionally, due to the vast and fluid nature of the Internet, it is difficult to keep tabs on the hundreds and thousands of websites that pop up every day. Therefore, the protection of its intellectual property can become difficult.

However, the Court denied the plaintiff’s request for a temporary preventive injunction. The decision of the Court regarding the said petition rejected by the plaintiff stems from the logic that when it comes to trademark infringement, each case must be analyzed separately. Therefore, a blanket order against any future registrations containing the SNAPDEAL yarn/trademark did not appear warranted in the interests of justice.

Furthermore, the Court, while declaring that the defendants are intermediaries, also pointed out that in the event that the algorithm designed by the defendants suggests alternative domain names that infringe the trademarks, the defendants will not be able to take the defense of the safe harbor. However, no reliable technique or system has been provided by the Court as to how to provide the alternative domain names that will not infringe any registered trademarks, as there would be countless such occurrences generated by the algorithm.

Due to the outcome of this case, the debate in the contemporary legal world regarding the standoff between punitive and preventive law regarding the accused remains unresolved. The Court Order leaves a huge gap between its order and the eventual enforcement of said order. In such a situation, legislation imposing a legal obligation on defendants to make such modulations may be a viable avenue. Additionally, defendants in the process to stay off the radar of the legislation may also be asked to self-regulate and make such modulations or create a profile for an ombudsman to address these issues.

]]>
Trademarks – Domain name registration – No omnibus injunction against DNR offers – Registries however to ensure infringing domain names are not suggested as alternatives https://atcardloan.com/trademarks-domain-name-registration-no-omnibus-injunction-against-dnr-offers-registries-however-to-ensure-infringing-domain-names-are-not-suggested-as-alternatives/ Fri, 13 May 2022 10:10:03 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/trademarks-domain-name-registration-no-omnibus-injunction-against-dnr-offers-registries-however-to-ensure-infringing-domain-names-are-not-suggested-as-alternatives/ The Delhi High Court has reiterated its position not to grant omnibus injunctions to domain name registries (DNRs). In a case where plaintiff sought an injunction against DNR’s offer to any aspiring registrant of any domain name containing the thread “SNAPDEAL”, the Court held that plaintiff must necessarily petition the Court against each domain name […]]]>

The Delhi High Court has reiterated its position not to grant omnibus injunctions to domain name registries (DNRs). In a case where plaintiff sought an injunction against DNR’s offer to any aspiring registrant of any domain name containing the thread “SNAPDEAL”, the Court held that plaintiff must necessarily petition the Court against each domain name that it finds to be infringing.

He was of the view that it could not be considered, in advance, that any possible alternative domain name, containing the word/thread/string “SNAPDEAL” would necessarily be infringing in nature and, therefore, injunctive, d an omnibus and global way, DNR never provides a domain name containing “SNAPDEAL”.

The Court noted that the cause of action, in any trademark infringement action, must relate to the trademark(s) at issue and therefore the Court cannot make an order, to operate in the future, prohibiting the defendants from offering for registration any domain name that includes the thread “SNAPDEAL”. According to the Court, this would be to attribute to the Court a clairvoyance which it does not possess.

However, it may be noted that the High Court of Snapdeal Private Limited v. Godaddycom Llc also ruled that DNRs should stop providing alternate domain names or find some way to ensure that infringing domain names are not provided. He rejected in this regard the DNRs’ assertion that since the process by which alternate domain names are obtained from the domain name registry is automated, they cannot guarantee that alternate domain names are not infringing in nature.

Observing that the violation of intellectual property rights is not tolerable in law, the Court held that it was not open to anyone to claim that his activities are carried out in such a way that he cannot guarantee against the violation. .

The Court, although in its judgment of 18 April 2022, held that DNRs were “intermediaries” within the meaning of section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000 information, it was of the view that the provision of safe harbor under section 79 of the said Act cannot At first glance be available to DNRs, to the extent that alternate domain names they provided to future registrants would infringe the applicant’s trademark.

The Court also observed that an intermediary, which operates for profit, as a commercial enterprise, cannot apply for amnesty under Article 79(1), in particular, with regard to the liabilities arising from such activities, which go beyond the activity of providing access to a communications system as contemplated by Article 79(2)(a).

]]>
Ecostream LLC Attempts Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/ecostream-llc-attempts-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-domain-name-wire/ Tue, 10 May 2022 17:03:17 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/ecostream-llc-attempts-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-domain-name-wire/ The company filed UDRP after failing to purchase the domain name from the current owner. A National Arbitration Forum panelist discovered that Ecostream LLC attempted to hijack an upside-down domain name. The company, which provides water management and oil recovery services, filed a dispute against the domain name ecostream.com. The company uses ecostreamusa.com. According to […]]]>

The company filed UDRP after failing to purchase the domain name from the current owner.

A National Arbitration Forum panelist discovered that Ecostream LLC attempted to hijack an upside-down domain name.

The company, which provides water management and oil recovery services, filed a dispute against the domain name ecostream.com. The company uses ecostreamusa.com.

According to the case decision, Ecostream LLC started using the Ecostream trademark after the respondent registered the domain, so this case was dead on arrival.

Worse still, Ecostream doesn’t have a trademark or submit evidence showing common law rights, so it didn’t even pass the first part of the UDRP (which the domain is identical or similar to a mark in which the plaintiff has rights).

Upon discovering the reverse domain name hijacking, National Arbitration Forum panelist Terry Peppard wrote:

Based on the record before us, highlights on this issue include the following:

1. throughout these proceedings, the Complainant was represented by experienced legal counsel;

2. The Complainant was aware, when it filed its Complaint, that the Respondent had acquired its domain name before the Complainant could establish common law rights in the ECOSTREAM mark on which it relies;

3. Complainant has provided no evidence that Respondent obtained its domain name registration in bad faith in anticipation of Complainant acquiring rights to its claimed trademark; and

4. Complainant filed its Complaint only after its efforts to purchase Respondent’s domain name failed.

On these facts, we find both that the Complainant’s complaint is unfounded, as stated above, and that the Complainant’s submissions demonstrate that in filing and pursuing these proceedings, the Complainant attempted in bad faith to obtain by abusing the process of the policy what he could not obtain to his satisfaction by negotiation (often referred to as filing a “Plan B”). Accordingly, plaintiff is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking as defined in the Rules…

The domain owner did not respond to the dispute, but Peppard noted that the panelist was “forced to consider” reverse domain name hijacking given the circumstances.

Maslon, LLP represented the Complainant.

]]>