Skip to main content

Someone else got your domain name?


Registering a name on the World Wide Web comes with rules which are not very clear, hence innocent and new business owners become vulnerable to law suits. Cybersquatting is one such issue. It’s when a domain name is purposely registered to gain profit off another’s trademark.
ICANN, which is a California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, takes care of all types of domain name system management. When an issue of Cybersquatting arises, the complaining party takes ICANN’s special aid. ICANN accredits four different domain name dispute resolution services which handle the disputes effectively without having to take the dispute to court.
Usually the resolution takes place online and the entire process takes less than 45 days to come up with a decision. What is good about this system is that, even after the decision has been taken, if the company is still not satisfied with the results, it can take the matter to court. To further the process after the complaint, the defendant has to produce documents which can verify if the trademark is legit.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) authorizes a trademark owner to sue an alleged cybersquatter in federal court and obtain a court order transferring the domain name back to the trademark owner. In some cases, the cybersquatter must pay money damages.
To prevail in a domain name dispute, the complainant must prove that the disputed domain name "has been registered and is being used in bad faith." The below lists four circumstances as evidence of bad faith:

(i) the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the complainant or a competitor for more than the documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the name; or
(ii) the domain was registered in order to prevent the mark owner from using it, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such registration; or
(iii) the domain was registered primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation.
These factors, however, are non-exclusive, and panels have applied them rather loosely, finding bad faith in activities beyond those enumerated in the list.
In order to stop a cybersquatter, the trademark owner must prove all of the following:
·        the domain name registrant had a bad-faith intent to profit from the trademark
·         the trademark was distinctive at the time the domain name was first registered
·        the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, and
·       the trademark qualifies for protection under federal trademark laws -- that is, the trademark is distinctive and its owner was the first to use the trademark in commerce.
If the accused cybersquatter demonstrates that he had a reason to register the domain name other than to sell it back to the trademark owner for a profit, then a court will probably allow him to keep the domain name.

Clear examples of bad faith registration are not hard to come by. More interesting are the less clear cases, in which panels go beyond the enumerated factors in reaching their decisions. 
The penalties for cybersquatting are
  1. Three times the value of harm actually suffered
  2. Any profits realized by the cyber squatter
  3. Court costs
  4.  Possible legal fees

However, if you are Brittany Spears and cannot sing; the courts will award the rights to your domain to the Brittany Spears who can sing. She deserves that name more apparently. 





Popular posts from this blog

SO WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN ?

We have been fighting a religion defined definition of “ when did the life of a fetus begin”. It is a trap. The debate around this whole concept is so ridiculous that when you see pages of theories being written about the exact time “life took a birth”

Why I call this entire argument ridiculous is because technically everything is life. A cell is a life. An ant is a life, a plant is a life. Zygotes are life too. However, if you choose to mourn the zygote the same way you chose to mourn taking the dead cells off the bottom off your feet- is a decision you need to make with yourself.



All of these arguments around “life” distract from the actual issue, which is that no human should be required to share their organs with another human. No human should be required to sacrifice their life for another human. The intention or reason behind abortion is irrelevant in the context of the right to bodily autonomy.
I would argue that the Liberal “pro-choice” people who aggressively insist that abortio…

THE ABORTION FIGHT IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION

It's about firing the 2020 base. And the mainstream media is helping Trump


When Trump spewed his most preposterous lie about abortion in a rally about how full-term babies were killed by Doctors; do you think no one in the crowd was grown up enough to know that it was a lie? These are full grown people who make more important and logical decisions in their lives every day- what to buy; what to do, where to spend, how to earn a living. Do you think they do not know that Trump was concocting imagery for the benefit of creating a national debate about disgust towards the concept of “abortion”? Abortion is painful. Emotionally, it never leaves a woman. I aborted in 1998, then miscarried in 2008 and 2011. Each time, I named those cells and fetuses, celebrate their lives and created a story for their absence in mine, those cells, which could not find viability, for one reason or the other. So for someone, and these 25 white men, and several others, who have never been through that life-…

The Clock is Ticking : BACKWARD FOR WOMEN

Sometimes it is just a customary sound; but a movement that takes us backward; instead of steering us forward.

2017 and 2018 have been the most regressive years in the progress of women. 

Since Trump became the President of the United States of America, a new culture of suppression of women rights has unleashed worldwide.  He has slowly degraded Women Rights by attacking fair pay legislation, defunding reproductive rights and changing the definition of violence against women. His attitude towards women is evident from the way he treats women and his objectification of the whole gender. In response, the women rights movement has revived itself, only to become negative and vicious.

No one wins when we have to fight. It is still a pity that we have to wave flags, march, hoist posters and commemorate each other on this day every year. We should not have to. 




The global economy could be enriched by about $160tn (£120tn) if women earned as much as men. 

No Zaghari-Ratcliffe should have to be in …