AAA.net domain name dispute - AAAmazing

Nice to see that some trademark lawyers are kept busy with doubtful domain name dispute claims. The American Automobile Association lost a domain name dispute at NAF, and now apparently pressured the registrant to hand over the domain name after commencing a Federal lawsuit.

Of course AAA is more than the American Automobile Association. Just check out any yellow pages directory, such as this one.

NEWSFLASH: DOMAIN NAME ARBITRATOR BEING INVESTIGATED FOR MISCONDUCT

The following ADNDRC press release was brought to my attention by IDNFORUMS.COM members.

Announcement on Domain Name Dispute Cases Handled by The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Hong Kong Office) Hong Kong.

5 October 2009 - The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) announced today that the ADNDRC Council has formed a special committee to investigate whether, in view of the potential claims which have been made against the Hong Kong Office of the ADNDRC and its personnel, there are potential liabilities of ADNDRC caused by any wrongdoings or misconduct on the part of ADNDRC administrative personnel in Hong Kong, in connection with its handling of domain name disputes. The special committee is comprised of Hon Justice Michael Hartmann (chair), Mr Robin Peard JP and Mr Fred Kan. The special committee will report its findings to the ADNDRC Council for such action as it deems appropriate. Allegations made against certain individual ADNDRC Panelists will be investigated by the ADNDRC Council directly. Pending the outcome of these investigations, the ADNDRC will make no public comment on the matters which are the subject of the investigation. About Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (“ADNDRC”) (Hong Kong Office)


The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (“ADNDRC”) is one of only four (4) providers in the world and the first and only one located in Asia, of dispute resolution services in regards to generic top level domain names (gTLD's), which are the top level domains approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which appointed the ADNDRC as a domain name dispute provider on 3 December 2001. To learn more about the ADNDRC, please visit: http://www.adndrc.org/.
 
...........................
 
This is simply shocking that there have been serious enough complaints and reasons for the ADNDRC to have to commence an investigation of possible misconduct.
 
In the 10 years of domain name dispute resolution, an investigation of misconduct by an arbitration provider is unprecedented. We must watch the outcome of this very carefuly....

ADDENDUM:
Here are some more apparent details from another news item:
http://www.abnnewswire.net/press/en/61579/Cheung-Kong-(Holdings)-Limited.html

NBA Star Now Owns 800 "Cybersquatted" Domain Names

Could Chris Bosh Be a Future ICANN UDRP Respondent at WIPO or NAF?

So I read the news item where Toronto Raptors NBA star Chris Bosh won a judgment for $120,000 against a domainer, Luis Zavala (Hoopology.com) for registering ChrisBosh.com. The judgment apparently came down in April, but now Bosh's lawyers reportedly convinced the judge to order that the domainer's 800 other mainly sports and celebrity domain names domains be handed over to Chris Bosh as well, since the defendant wasn't likely to pay the $120,000 judgement...

Bosh's lawyer reportedly stated, that "the Raptors’ star has no intention of holding onto any of them except his own. “He’s not trying to make any money here. He just wants to give these players their names back.".

So let me get this straight....Chris Bosh sues a guy for cybersquatting and then takes 800 cybersquatted domain names as booty? And Bosh's lawyers are apparently going to decide for themselves, who deserves the domain names: “We are notifying the world that anyone whose name is on this list that has a legitimate right to the domain name, Chris will transfer it to them for free,” said Brian Heidelberger, one of three lawyers who represented Bosh." Wow. So the Judge gave up the court's jurisdiction to a sports star and his lawyers to determine who has the rights to particular domain names...Amazing. Here is the actual text of the lawyers' terms for handing over the domain names - a kind of screwy para-UDRP process entirely within the discretion of a basketball star and his lawyers:

Chris Bosh and Max Deal offer the return of the domain name free of charge as a courtesy to the celebrity named herein, provided that such person promptly requests the return of such domain name in writing from Max Deal. Domain names will not be returned without a direct written request from an authorized person to Hadi@MaxDealTechnologies.com. Prior to transferring any domain name on this list, Chris Bosh and Max Deal reserve the right to require documentation in their reasonable discretion to support the requester's rights in the domain name. Domain names on this list may or may not be renewed at Chris Bosh and Max Deal's sole discretion. Chris Bosh and Max Deal reserve the right to at any time in their sole discretion to delete or cancel domain names on this list. Chris Bosh and Max Deal will not charge any fees for the transfer of domain names on this list. All third party costs relating to transfer of any domain name on this list to an authorized rights holder, including but not limited to transfer fees charged by the requester's registrar, are the sole responsibility of the party requesting transfer. Chris Bosh and Max Deal make no representations express or implied regarding any domain name on this list. By requesting or accepting the transfer of a domain name, you hereby release Chris Bosh and Max Deal from any and all liabilities in connection therewith.

But wait...WHO IS MAX DEAL? Good question! Its a social networking site associated with/owned by Chris Bosh. According to Bosh's press release, "Max Deal is a social media company that allows brands to increase their reach". How does that fit in? This is what Chris Bosh has to say according to his press release:

"I will offer the return of the domain names free of charge, but I'd also love the opportunity to show their owners how Max Deal can help."

Ahhh, I get it. When someone calls up to get their domain name back off of Chris Bosh, the new owner of the cybersquatted domain names, he will take the opportunity to sell them on how they can use the domain names in connection with his social media business....According to the terms copied above, Chris Bosh can delete or cancel any domain name in his sole discretion. Better be careful or the domain name could get dropped and picked up by another cybersquatter. What happens if Chris Bosh decides to not give back a name because the claimant doesn't meet his criteria? Maybe Bosh takes the position that one of the highschool basketball players or Venezuelan racecar drivers on his list doesnt have common law trademark rights? Could Bosh be the Respondent in a ICANN UDRP? The Complainant could argue that Bosh registered the domain names in bad faith and is using them in bad faith because he won't give them back and registered them with the intention of using them in bad faith as part of his monetization scheme in Max Deal....

Can you imagine if a domainer registered 800 celebrity domain names and his defense was that he would give them back to anyone who convinced him that they were the rightful owner and listened to his pitch that they could do great business together by letting the domainer monetize their name? What would happen to the domainer in a case like that?....

Its great when someone is there to help out his fellow man. Thankfully the Judge realized this when she allowed Chris Bosh and his entourage to "distribute" the ill-gotten domain names.

And I note that at least one of the domain names in the list, cockblocks.com, is not a celebrity that I am familair with. I wonder what Chris plans on doing with that name....Will the rightful owner please stand up?

For more information on domain name law please visit http://www.dnattorney.com/.

Dog Fight Over SPCA.COM Domain Name Dispute

The Montreal, Quebec Court released an interim and partial injunction regarding the domain name SPCA.COM according to CTV News, but the domain name registrant is allowed to keep it, at least for now, pending the outcome of a trial involving other issues such as wrongful dismissal and defamation. The domain name registrant was reportedly permitted to keep the domain name but must direct donations received throught the web site to a trust fund, pending the outcome of the action. Although not a domain name lawyer, renowned Canadian constitutional lawyer Julius Grey is representing the registrant, and I imagine is providing top-not counsel to the registrant.

Privacy Protection for .CA Domain Names Kills Business for Domainers

Privacy Protection for domainers who have legitimate portfolios is a little like a burka on a bikini model.


Although keeping one's domain name registration details private is an attractive concept and may even help wary registrants avoid imparting too much information to prospective domain name dispute claimants, in my humble opinion, the practice is a business killer in the .CA realm. As a domain name lawyer I can rarely find out who owns what to try and put together deals. I can't trace the history of domains to perform due diligence. I can't identify connections between web sites and domain owners. It stymies me. And if it stymies me from doing .CA deals, that means that it is hurting business for .CA owners , who dont need any more negative factors affecting the Canadian market than they already have. Sure I can sometimes use other methods, but the utility of domaintools.com whois archives is lessening as time goes on, because it carries no new information for most .ca's since all recent records are privacy protected.

By way of background, CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority made privacy protection a "default setting", and considered this move a leadership position in the Internet world. And I did too. I am a big fan of privacy and thought that CIRA's privacy protection policy was extraordinarily progressive and consumer-friendly. But I was wrong. It kills business. Imagine a stock exchange where there are no listings....That is what has happened here. And the benefit of privacy is nil for a domainer who is trying to hide, because a CDRP reveals your identity anyhow....and hiding can actually encourage a CDRP...So it gets you nowhere other than to avoid someone like me finding out what domain name you own so I can easily contact you and know who you are, to make a deal.

In the Canadian .CA realm, domains are extraordinarily underdeveloped so we need all the contact and attention that we can get - not privacy! We don't want a marketplace with hidden vendors. We want a marketplace with vendors showing their wares off in public and making themselves available to bargain with each other.

NameMedia Launches New Service for Domain Investors.

This should be interesting. I will check it out. See the Press Release here. The newly launched service, called Domainer`s Advantage, offers domain investors a comprehensive knowledge center.

Domain Name Dispute: The Movie?

SLIDETV.com, Inc. today declared victory in its domain name dispute with Slide, Inc. in what has been described as a modern day David vs. Goliath story. The Redwood City, California-based internet marketing company now plans to turn the drama into a feature film.....Which is strange for two reasons: First, this UDRP dispute was back in August, so its a little late to "declare victory". Second, the movie doesn't sound like it will be an Official Jury Selection at Cannes any time soon. You can read a little more about it here. Anyhow, congrats to the UDRP winner in this NAF dispute.

Anonymity on the Internet

Just a quick note to mention that journalism student Daniel Fish wrote a piece for his student newspaper at Carleton, The Charlatan, on a recent court case involving York University and anonymous emails..."Online communication not as anonymous as it seems". I provided Daniel with some thoughts on the subject. Always glad to help students out....

Converged

Remember "Convergence"? It was the concept where all modes of communications were to become unified...., or alternatively, "media convergence is a concept in which old and new media intersect".

Well, nobody announced it, but we are already there and have been for some time....

I realized this when I heard that the police are being trained by consultants about how to use social networking utilities and sites to obtain evidence and investigate people, and related it to how anonymous bloggers and web site posters are being exposed by court orders.

So, there is no difference any longer between the "bricks and mortar" and "cyberspace"; they are both now part of the "real world". The same rules apply, the same laws apply, the same degree of anonymity or lack thereof applies - cyberspace has converged into the "real world". There was a time where many thought that the Internet was a safe haven. That time has long since passed.

A blogger has the same degree of free speech and anonymity (or lack thereof) as someone who posts an index card on a grocery store bullietin board....Welcome to the new Internet world, same as the old world.

WIZZAIRSUCKS.COM Claims Victory in ICANN UDRP Domain Name Dispute at WIPO

Well, that must suck for Wizz Air, the Hungarian discount airliner.....

Panelist Sebastian Hughes provided an exceptionally well-reasoned and fair decision in a Complaint brought by the airliner against Texas Wizzair critic, Holden Thomas, proprietor of WizzAirSucks.com.

Although the Panelist found that, "the addition of the word “sucks” as a suffix in the disputed domain name does little to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Marks, and that there is a clear likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Trade Marks", the Panel properly denied the Complaint upon analyzing the other two parts of the three-part UDRP test ("legitimate interest" and "bad faith registration and use").

The Panelist wrote on "Legitimate Interest": The Panel finds no evidence to suggest the Respondent, in registering the disputed domain name and setting up the Website, has misleadingly diverted consumers to the Website. Other than a bald assertion of tarnishment, the Complainant has not made any submissions nor filed any evidence to suggest that the Website has been set up and used in order to tarnish the Trade Marks. In any event, fair use criticism does not amount to tarnishment and is not proscribed under the Policy (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No. D2004-0014).

The Panelist wrote on "Bad Faith": In any event, in all the circumstances, the Panel is of the opinion that the use of the disputed domain name in respect of genuine and non-commercial criticism of the Complainant does not amount to bad faith registration and use.

Having read and reviewed domain name dispute cases for many years, and having represented clients in numerous domain name disputes as a domain name dispute lawyer, I found the Panelist's decision to be extraordinarily well-balanced, and he applied the UDRP in a precise and comendable manner.

Good to see that free speech on the Internet has been protected by domain name law.

Canadian Prime Minister Needs A Good Domain Name Lawyer?

Canada's Globe and Mail reported today that "Edmonton-based blogger Dave Cournoyer pointed out on his blog Thursday night that the website stephenharper.com is actually a link to a portal for adult personals, replete with images of women clad in black lingerie and stiletto heels."  *****[The Story seems to have been removed by the  Glober now...weird...Maybe because it was inaccurate or for some other reason??]*****

Upon checking it on Friday morning however, I saw that it is currently just pointed to a standard PPC page. The story also points out that StephenHarper.org is a lampoon web site about the Canadian Prime Minister.

As a domain name dispute lawyer, I would say that the .org domain name is probably beyond the reach of Stephen Harper, assuming he would even be interested in going after it, since it is likely a non-commercial and fair use, e.g. for the purposes of review, critiscism, and commentary, as understood by the UDRP and by trademark law. The .com however, could theoretically be caught by the ICANN UDRP, if the PM brought a case to WIPO or the NAF, for example, if he was able to provide "trademark rights" in his name, and showed that the registrant had "no legitimate interest" in the domain name, and registered it and used it in "bad faith".

In this Jay Leno case reported by the Calgary Herald, one can see a summary of the WIPO's analysis of the UDRP provisions regarding personal names and common law trademark rights. The actual ICANN UDRP WIPO domain name dispute case can be read here.