[H-GEN] Domain Name Grabbing! (fwd)

David Starkoff dbs at humbug.org.au
Wed Dec 3 21:46:19 EST 1997


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This came in my email a couple of hours ago, and I thought the curiosity
of some members of HUMBUG may be piqued by this report. 

FWIW, this decision is not binding on any Australian court (as well as any
appellate English court). However, the decision seems to be fairly sound,
and, I think that the English law which was argued in the case is similar
to the Australian law. 

David.
(Did somebody mention Law?)
- --
dbs at humbug.org.au | http://student.uq.edu.au/~s343905/
 ``What sort of person would give up a salary of a jillion dollars a
   year in a big firm to drive a rusted-out Ford Pinto and wear suits
   made of old horse blankets?'' -- James D. Gordon, III.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:49 +1100 (EST)
From: Nigel Hamilton <nige at socs.uts.EDU.AU>
To: computer-law at socs.uts.EDU.AU
Subject: [computer-law] Domain Name Grabbing!


              The High Court in London has banned two men from
              dealing in Internet "domain names" in a case brought by
              five major UK companies. Domain names are the essential
              Website or e-mail addresses.

              The court heard that the men made a speciality of
              registering names and then offering them for sale or
              hire to potential users. The court ruled that the men
              should be banned from infringing trademarks.

              Richard Conway and Julian Nicholson were said to have
              made a speciality of registering domains such as
              "ladbrokes.com", "marksandspencer.com",
              "spice-girls.net" and "buckinghampalace.org". All were
              apparently registered without the consent of the owners
              of the names.

              The court was told the two men then tried to sell the
              names for profit. Mr Conway wrote to Burger King
              offering to sell them the name "burgerking.co.uk." for
              =A325,000 plus VAT, otherwise it would be available for
              sale to any other interested party.

              The case was brought by five companies whose famous
              names were under threat: British Telecom, Marks &
              Spencer, Ladbrokes, J Sainsbury and Virgin Enterprises.


                                  Deputy Judge Jonathan
                                  Sumption QC said: "The
                                  history of the defendants'
                                  activities shows a deliberate
                                  practice followed over a
                                  substantial period of time of
                                  registering domain names
                                  which are chosen to
                                  resemble the names and
                                  marks of other people and
                                  are plainly intended to
              deceive. The threat of passing-off and trade mark
              infringement, and the likelihood of confusion arising
              from infringement of the mark, are made out beyond
              argument."

              He said the Internet had no central regulating authority
              and was almost entirely governed by convention.

              The two men and their businesses, One in a Million Ltd,
              Global Media Communications and Junic, registered names
              with recognised organisations such as Network Solutions
              Inc of Virginia and Nominet UK, and then offered them
              for sale to potential users much in the same way as
              company registration agents.

              The names offered by Global included
              "macdonalds.co.uk", "sundaytimes.co.uk" and
              "thetimes.co.uk". The court was told that such names
              could only have four uses:

                To sell to the named company or organisation, which
              might be prepared to pay a high price to have it under
              its control.
                To sell to a third party, perhaps for the purpose of
              deceiving the public.
                To sell to someone with an interest in the name
                Or to leave the name unused and unsold, thus
              blocking its use by others - including those whose name
              or trade mark it comprised.

              The judge stressed that the mere registration of a name
              was not, in itself, passing off or infringement of a
              trademark, but the obvious threat was there and
              injunctions should be granted to prevent it.

              The judge said; "Any person who deliberately registers a
              domain name on account of its similarity to the name,
              brand name or trademark of an unconnected commercial
              organisation must expect to find himself on the
              receiving end of an injunction to restrain the threat of
              passing-off, and the injunction will be in terms which
              will make the name commercially useless to the dealer,"
              he said.

              He granted injunctions against the pair and their
              businesses, and ordered them to pay =A365,000 legal
              costs. He also directed them to take steps to have the
              disputed names assigned to the complaining companies.

              Speaking after the case, Mr Nicholson said he
              considered the judge's decision a crucial one for the
              future of the domain name registration system. "It can
              only be a very important decision. Surveys have shown
              that 41% of domain names included parts of other
              people's trademarks. The judgment doesn't really address
              that," he said.

              Before the case was heard, Mr Nicholson had argued
              that he and Mr Conway were conducting a business just as
              a collector of rare postcards would. "If we had a rare
              postcard and someone else said they wanted to buy it
              from us, we would consider selling it to them," he said.


              He said he was now unsure about the future of One in a
              Million Ltd. "One in a Million Ltd has no assets, and
              neither myself or Richard Conway have any significant
              assets. It is unlikely that any claim for costs could be
              met," he said.

Source:
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F35000/35458.stm



Nigel Hamilton

Barrister
Lecturer - Department of Information Systems            
School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences
University of Technology, Sydney
ph 9514 1826

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To send a message to this mailing list send it to computer-law at socs.uts.EDU.AU.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email majordomo at socs.uts.EDU.AU with the
message `unsubscribe computer-law' in the BODY of the mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: ascii
Comment: Public key at http://student.uq.edu.au/~s343905/dbs.asc

iQCVAwUBNIYZfdBnG/raHc+lAQEnCwQAxKtXZFVKc8NL5yZTM9Cb2PhTR9obY9AM
ORREUSwJKcjOh9E6tuby2OenLaJOsLvi6uPR5lOEG10MvtRmA8WMZ6Wais1JKnhP
HSHBWm+tGE0LZ1YO9cng6+VFQZTnbOlDL6CIFqO6ZPbyKUIMPZlmi1zvhC6OBuMv
2WFx+MI0z4I=
=HU2v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----------------------- HUMBUG General List --------------------------------
echo "unsubscribe general" | mail majordomo at humbug.org.au # To Unsubscribe



More information about the General mailing list