Precis#2

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Domain Names and Trademarks

Internet has evolved rapidly and instantly became a big market place. One of the many ways people can make profit is by register a domain. This way of making money has became quite complicated, therefore the Network Slutions Inc. and other domain name registars adopted a new dispute policy that incorpates the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) developed by Internet Corporation for Assigned Name and Number (ICANN) came up with a few regulations to prevent it from a disaster.

This law is called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act to puts things under control. Many people created domain for difference of reasons. Some people created for the purpose of promoting their products online, or to run a business. However there are other people know as “bad faith” create a domain to sell it, lease it, or even to annoy someone that they don’t like. There are four basic guideline that makes people with bad intention or “bad faith” to fall into this category:

1. If a domain name owner has obtained a domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to a party who owns a registered trademark or to a competitor of that trademark owner.
2. Registering a domain name in order to prevent the owner of a registered trademark from protecting that trademark in the form of a domain name.
3. Adopting a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
4. Intentionally attempting to draw visitors to the web site of the domain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the domain and the trademark.

There are several option that you can do if you come across this problem and that is to file a “Claims”. However before you can do that, register a trademark is required. This will prove that the you own that name. Don’t be surprise if you see a domain with your name because even if it’s your name it doesn’t it belongs to you.

Several cases like this happened in the past. Jerry Falwell was one of the victim. Gary Cohn used his name (Jerryfalwell.com) as a domain name just so Cohn can make fun of him. Jerry got furious and went to sue Cohn for violation of trademarks. Violation what? Unfortunately, it wasn’t his to began with unless he had registered. The court dismissed his case because there was no evidence that Cohn was targetting him or did anything unlawful. The ideas that you’re born with a name then that name is belong to you is no longer consider true on the world of network. Maybe this is trivia matter and the court doesn’t want to waste their time on it. Let’s talk about people who has real intention of profiting a domain.

Julia Roberts a famous actress, however your name were being used for a domain “juliaroberts.com”. Now the question comes into play whether the owner is condisder “bad fight” or not. The UDRP followed a few guide line to determine the case such as:

1. whether the domain was identical to that of the actress’s name;
2. whether the actress had a trademark or trademark rights in her name;
3. whether the domain owner had any legitimate rights to the domain name; and
4. whether the use by the domain owner was in bad faith.

Unfortunately her case is somewhat similar to Jerry Falwell because she didn’t registered a trademarks for her name. It’s true that her name is identical with the domain, that part is true. But the rest failed. She doesn’t have a trademarks. It could be a coincidence that the owner picked up the name randomly, and there’s no evidence to tell whether he/she is in “bad faith”. The UDRP has to figure out that whether or not when people hears the name “Julia Roberts” instance log onto juliaroberts.com. But problem is how would they figure it out? Tough luck! Fortunately for her in this case, they found that there was an identification in the minds of the public betwwen the actual name and thep erson of the actress. Thus, they concluded that she possessed “trademark rights” even if no actual registerd mark.

Another similar case is Jimi Hendrix. I’m sure a lot of music fan know who Jimi Hendrix is. Same thing happen, there was a “jimihendrix.com” domain and was registered as a fan club. The domain owner was also the owner of an extensive number of other celebrity and “vanity” domains including “elvispresley.com”, “jethrotull.com” and is offer to sell jimihendrix.com domain for a million dollars. This was the true intention of domain owner. He/she wanted to sell it not a “fan club”. If it was truly a “fan club” then it would’ve become more complicated. UDRP came to a conclusion that it was “bad faith” and thus it asked the owner to transferred the name.

Word of advice, if you think your name is worth anything registered a trademarks for it. Unlike Falwell I wouldn’t be offended if someone used my name as a domain just so they could make fun of it. If you’re a nobody then there’s nothing for you to worry about unless you’re “somebody”. Also have some sportmanship. Don’t register a domain to sell it or to annoyed people. The law has been established and it’s called, “ Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act”. No more of that legal domain transaction. So beware!

Precis #1

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –> <!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Net Neutrality Proposal Revived in Senate

A few senators think that given everyone High-Speed-Internet access without paying extra fees would ensure the fate of internet users. Sure it does! However Internet service provider (ISP) such as AT&T, verizon don’t want to lose this benefit. These ISP company think that they have the right to charge extra for premium placement on their network to recoup vast investments in their infrastructure.

If the Net Neutrality Proposal were to passed then Verizon, AT&T or any internet service provider would have to do extra work to service their users and it’s free. For instance, Verizon would choose to set aside a dedicated pipe for all user-generated video content and it’s free. In other word, this Net’s proposal is asking these ISP to do charity work.

This Net’s proposal bill which is called Internet Freedom Preservation Act, would prohibit network operator from charging extra fee whether you’re a business or home-users. What that means is business has faster internet access compare to home-user, but still paying for the same fees.

The democrats wanted to dip their hands into the way telecommunication do their business. They wanted to shape it in a way so that it would benefit the user greatly. However these so called Internet Freedoom Preservation Act was defeated by the Republican a year ago. However this year the majority tipped slightly over to the democratic side.

It doesn’t seem that Internet service provider (ISP), and telephone industry don’t want to hand their benefits away without a fight. The House of Representatives, Rep. Edward Markey is expected to reintroduce the Net and hoping to win. However since it was defeated, he now needs 60 vote in senate for the filibuster.

Each sides has their own believe system. ISP and telephone industry think it’s bad for them because it would prevent them from customizing their internet service, and that would mean all the telephone industry, including AT&T and Verizon, will be losing advances in home monitoring, greater security of their financial transaction, new entertainment choices and telecommuting opportunities.

The bill will takes away a huge advantage of these Internet Service Provider (ISP) and prevent them from maximizing their service potential.

On the other hand, however, users see things from a different perspective. Ranging from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the Net’s pioneer, would think that any prioritization is threaten the freedoms that internet users have always enjoyed. Technically these two sides have different philosophy. Internet service providers want to profit as much as they can, whereas senator Snowe-Dorgan or the Net’s pioneer would think it should be FREE. They did mounted a grassroots campaigns calling for federal regulations barring such a practice.

What exactly these senates and Net’s pioneers want to do is and I quote, “mark another step toward in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers”. Gatekeepers is refer to the Internet Service Provider, or telephone company that open the gates so we, the users, can access to the internet.

The bill was co-sponsored by six Democrats: Senator Barara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Kerry, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and no Republican except Snowe. April 5, 2006 it was defeated by Republican. However that doesn’t stop democrats from giving it another shot.

Outside Net Neutrality proposes that all broadband companies must offer customers the option of purchasing standalone service. What it does is it’ll merge AT&T and BellSouth together. But AT&T resist the idea and that they have no intention of applying Net Neutrality conditions more broadly.

It is still not sure which side is going to win. History could normally repeats itself once again. Formal Chairman of a House Internet and telecommunications subcommittee said it was not immediately clear when the action would occur. There might be a chance that Democrats would give up at some point.

By all means, the chance of resurrecting this bill is slim because there’s no benefit for the telephone industry, and would reduce their profit greatly. Hence, they’ll put up the fight to the end.