The articles in discussion focus on the topic of legislation regarding rights to domain names. As was discussed in class, when the internet first began many people made a “quick buck” buying the domain names to large corporations. Later, when the corporation made an effort to begin a website in their name, they found the name was already taken. These corporations were forced to pay up to millions of dollars for these domain names. As the internet has grown and evolved, legislation has been written to address this issue. In “Domain Name Disputes- An Update,” Ivan Hoffman reviews the technical aspects of said legislation. As informative and helpful as the articles are, they were written in 2000 and most assuredly new legislation has been written on these subjects.

With ICANN’s decision to add seven more top level domains in addition to what was previously available (biz, info, name, etc…) came discussion on the effects this decision would have on trademark owners and site developers. In the beginning of 2000, ICANN developed a new dispute policy involving UDRP, or the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. UDRP was adopted by domain name registrars and was an addition to a complex series of laws regarding the internet called the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or “The Act,” which in itself was already a US trademark law amendment. These sets of laws (UDRP and The Act) are used to resolve cases in which a domain name is acquired through “bad faith.” For these laws to apply to cases, the domain name must be obviously used in reference to a trademark or trademark right, as well as being used in bad faith.

What is and is not considered bad faith usage varies depending on the specific case. However, there are some rules which clearly state what would be considered bad faith usage. In most cases, it is extremely important that the plaintiff have trademark rights over the domain name in question. There are four specific situations which clearly define “bad faith.” If the domain name has been purchased for the sole objective of reselling or making profit by transferring the domain for the use of another who owns that registered trademark (or is a competitor of that trademark owner), it is considered bad faith. It is also considered bad faith if one is registering the domain name so that no one else is able to protect that trademark of the domain name. If a domain name is purchased so to cause a problematic situation for the owner, or if a domain name is purchased in order to draw consumers of the trademark in question (or in any way to take advantage of the fame of the trademark for one’s own needs) are also cases of clearly defined bad faith.

If one considers themselves victim in such a situation, they are welcome to take the case up in court by filing a civil action claim. Usually, an arbitration panel will hear these cases for service fees, and these panels with determine the resulting decision. These actions are only suitable in cases where there is clear infringement of trademark rights as well as presence of bad faith usage of the domain. Until 2000, when such disputes came to pass, the only action taken was to freeze the domain name so that neither party had access. The legislation passed at this time allowed for the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff if found they had right to it. The registrar can also cancel the domain name, or change it, after they receive written notice from the domain name owner, a court-order requiring the changes, or an ICANN panel decision requiring the changes. However, these laws are most effective when the trademark owner has been aggressive in protecting their rights. If they have not protected their rights aggressively, they are at risk of losing those rights.

There are several cases in which celebrities have taken action against people who have purchased their domain names. One such case is when Jerry Falwell, a televangelist. Gary Cohn, an Illinois resident, purchased the domain names Jeryfalwell.com and Jerryfallwell.com, and used those sites to parody jerry Falwell’s opinions and claims. On the one hand, Jerry Falwell has no use of the domain and it is being used against him. On the other hand, one could argue that Gary Cohn is exercising his right to free speech. The court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case since Mr. Cohn did not live, work, or target people in the state of Virginia, where the court was located. Another case involved actress Julia Roberts. In this case, the domain name juliaroberts.com was taken but was not used as a fansite and was put up for auction. Due to that action, it was found that the domain name had been purchased in bad faith. It was also proven that because the name “Julia Roberts” brings to most people’s mind the specific Hollywood actress that even though she’d never registered the name as a trademark, she possessed trademark rights due to “secondary meaning.” Something similar occurred with the Jimi Hendrix estate, in that the domain name had been purchased in bad faith and was therefore transferred to the Jimi Hendrix estate.

In my opinion, the laws brought on with The Act and UDRP are very beneficial to the internet community as a whole. Yes, they are technically infringing on right to free speech, but when one considers the bad faith segments of the laws, these claims are unjustified. These laws are set in place to protect people from those who are out to profit. To register a domain name for the sole purpose of reselling it at a marked up price is no different from those who purchase necessary supplies during times of need and sell them marked up to those who truly need them. At it’s basest it is selfish and manipulative and serves only to take advantage of others in order to further one’s own causes. I do think, however, that law cases are rarely cut-and-dry. It is important that are are panels set in place to discuss these cases on a specific level. However, discussions such as these only prove further that the internet is growing vast and as such, real-world legislation is needed in order to police such acts.