Yesterday we posted about CADNA’s press release where they said that cybersquatting was criminal.
We called CADNA out on this.
Many asked where the ICA was on this issue and tonight they issued this press release:
“”””””On Wednesday, November 5 The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) released a statement that implied that cybersquatting is a criminal activity. CADNA said in its release “CADNA has been working diligently to further international and national policies that combat the practice of cybersquatting… As brands continue to learn about the prevalence and practice of online criminal activities…” Internet Commerce Association vigorously opposes cybersquatting. However, it is important to note that cybersquatting is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
There is a good reason that cybersquatting is a civil matter and not a crime. It involves a dispute between two parties about intellectual property, a protected mark. Trademark protection does not provide exclusive use of a mark in every class of commerce. Protection is even limited by geographic region in some cases. Therefore, there are many opportunities for dispute about who has rights to a mark in any given use. There are many famous marks that have multiple uses and multiple owners. This is how Olympic can be used for the famous international athletic competition that the world enjoys and also for Olympic Airlines, Olympic Arms and Olympic Paint. In fact, Olympic Paint owns Olympic.com and it is not a cybersquatter against other legitimate users of the Olympic mark. Trademark owners are already provided with two highly effective methods for dealing with the trademark abuse known as cybersquatting – the Uniform Dispute resolution Process administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and national laws such as the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Both these avenues balance the rights of trademark owners against the legitimate interests and considerable investments of domain name investors and developers.
Under the UDRP it is the responsibility of trademark owners to create and enforce their marks against alleged infringement by identical or confusingly similar domain names. The same legal principle is the law in many jurisdictions; for example, in the U.S. this requirement was recently affirmed in prominent trademark litigation in which eBay prevailed against the luxury brand Tiffany. Disputes about trademark infringement, including disputes about domain names, should be resolved by civil courts without involving law enforcement. It would not be an appropriate use of government resources for law enforcement to expend its scarce resources in disputes about intellectual property unless a domain name is being used to directly facilitate a related criminal enterprise. It would not make sense for someone from the Olympic Committee to call the police if they find a picture at Olympic.com that includes a child in a soccer uniform.
Cybersquatting is a problem that negatively impacts many businesses. Trademark owners, advertisers and domain name investors and developers alike are hurt by this abusive practice and many domain service providers employ notice and takedown complaint programs to assist trademark owners in protecting their rights. The Internet Commerce Association has adopted a Code of Conduct that prohibits intentional trademark infringement, has supported actions now being undertaken by ICANN to end abusive domain name “tasting” that facilitates cybersquatting, and will continue to support policy and legislation that effectively curbs cybersquatting and protects the rights of domain name investors and developers. However, we should all be careful to not overextend law enforcement by suggesting that it should be involved in resolving trademark disputes.”””
We are happy to see that the ICA jumped on this and made our position clear.
Action creates outcomes (negative or positive) -Action speaks louder than words
The ICA could have cut the statement to: THE ICA SIT ON THE FENCE
“ICA jumped on this and made our position clear” YEP
“Internet Commerce Association vigorously opposes cybersquatting. However, it is important to note that cybersquatting is a civil matter, not a criminal one” = Impotent
“The Internet Commerce Association has adopted a Code of Conduct that prohibits intentional trademark infringement” = Impotent
“Trademark owners are already provided with two highly effective methods for dealing with the trademark abuse known as cybersquatting”
MHB this is a contradiction with your own personal views ref post : So the first letter gets no response as does the second, so the trademark holder than has to file a UDRP and get a default judgment at a costs of thousands of dollars per domain.Although very expensive, its cheaper than paying their attorney to send out letters and file suits and UDRP for hundreds or thousands of domains. Therefore most find they HAVE to register every valuable trademark in every extension, although they have no use or need for them.
“Internet Commerce Association vigorously opposes cybersquatting. However, it is important to note that cybersquatting is a civil matter, not a criminal one” = Vigorously ?? Impotent
Empedocles
I repectfully disagree with your assessment.
The response to the CADNA press relase was to address one issue, that statement that CADNA said cybersqautting is criminal.
This is far from the first time they have said this.
Sadly in America after the public hears something time and time again they believe it as being true.
I insisted that the ICA send out a statement calling CADNA out, clarifying that cybersquatting is not criminal, it is civil and should stay that way.
You cannot in making that statement without also clearly stating that you are against cybersquatting which is in the ICA charter.
That does not take away from the fact that the statement of CADNA that cybersquatting=criminal conduct is false.
I think the statement was good and needed.
Let’s not send people to jail for registering a domain
If you sell faulty goods the buck stops with you. If you sell – lease savethechildren and set up a charitable site it is fraud and Codes of Conduct mean nothing. I do not any advocate control of the net. The TM system works, the laws governing it work for domainers. It is improving – updating these laws that is required and the ICA can be pro-active in shaping the future. MBH you have forgotten more than I know about the law, I do know that Codes of Conduct mean nothing.
Empedocles
If you set up a charitable site and take money and put it in your pocket you go to jail.
Nothing to do with trademark law.
You go to the store and put a gun to the clerks head and ask for money, you go to jail.
Now if your in business and someone uses your service and doesn’t pay you, all you can do it sue the guy. You can’t put the guy in jail for owing you money.
There are some issues which are civil in nature.
They are disputes between parties not criminal conduct.
Trademarks are one of those issues.
MBH I accept your authority on the subject of civil law and hope that blatant fraudulent use of a mark will become criminal law.
MBH Googles CEO Eric Schmidt just touches on what might come in his interview – part : Strategic Platforms Global Standards
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Innovation/Googles_view_on_the_future_of_business_An_interview_with_CEO_Eric_Schmidt_2229
Empedocles, see my comment on the link below for what seems to be the difference between civil and criminal:
http://www.thedomains.com/2008/11/05/cadna-adds-new-members/
U.S. law currently doesn’t classify cybersquatting as a criminal act, although it seems that’s what you want CADNA to succeed in doing. Personally I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that if only CADNA would recognize there are exceptions, as decided by various legal and administrative decisions.
Oh, and impotent like how exactly?
Hi Dave. I do not disagree with any of your comments.
Impotent is my view of the ICA responce.
Impotent = not potent; lacking power or ability / without force or effectiveness.
I think it’s going a little too far to call it a “criminal act.” Is it wrong? Yes. But it’s a civil wrong, in my opinion.