Small business owner asks small business advisor Alice Jacobs:
Q: I am planning to launch an online business that markets a specialty product. I checked to see if the domain name I wanted was available. Unfortunately, the only addresses left for me to choose from are limited to one of the the new endings, .US or .info. Which one do you think is better?
Her answer here.
An application for RED BULL for tequila is rejected by the TTAB on the basis of prior registrations for RED BULL for scotch whiskey and malt liquor. Although apparently there aren’t manufacturers who sell tequila and whiskey or malt liquor, the public might assume that there are. Via the Finnegan firm.
Konica and Minolta announced yesterday that it will merge to form Konica Minolta Holdings. Congratulations to:
Registrant:
Jinhee Lee
Rm. 101-1210, Ssangyong Apt., 702, Changsin-3 Dong Chongro-Ku
Seoul
Domain Name: KONICAMINOLTA.COM
Registrar: HANGANG Systems,Inc. dba doregi.com
Administrative, Technical, Billing Contact:
Jinhee Lee Applelee@lycos.co.kr
(02)-762-7483
Record created on…….: Jan 07, 2003
Mr. Lee also registered KONICA-MINOLTA.COM.
Second prize goes to:
PBP
Prasanth panikkasseril
704 N bruns lane
Springfield, IL 62702
US
Phone: 217 720 0413
Email: prasantpb@hotmail.com
Registrar Name….: Register.com
Registrar Whois…: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: KONICAMINOLTAHOLDINGS.COM
Created on…………..: Tue, Jan 07, 2003
Konica Corporation of Japan today registered KONICAMINOLTA.INFO and KONICA-MINOLTA.INFO, however they are disqualified as the trademark owner, its employees and their families are not eligible to enter the sweepstakes <irony indicator>.
I’m sorry I missed this when it came out in September. Here’s an article from Telephony (via ICB Toll Free News) regarding the practice of mis-spelled toll free numbers (as in 1-800-OPERATER instead of 1-800-OPERATOR).
Here was a strange Sixth Circuit case from 1996 in which Holiday Inn, owner of 1-800-HOLIDAY was not able to prevent the use of 1-800-H0LIDAY (that’s a zero).
Via BNA Internet Law News, an article regarding the ABA attempting to define the practice of law, so as to allow states to enforce statutes that prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. A pending defintion: “the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person that requires the knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law,” would, in my view, cover some functions in trademark practice now performed by non-lawyers (evaluating search reports and preparing trademark applications, for example). The FTC and the DoJ have asked the ABA to narrow the definition on the grounds that too broad a definition will reduce competition and leadto higher fees for legal services.
I am struck both by the brazenness of the domain name registrant in this story, and the writer’s failure to make any kind of comment that this person is admitting to actions which carry hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory damages. The article seems to be saying “Commit cyber-squatting – you’ll make some money.”
On the one hand, kanes-furniture.net might infringe the trademark rights of Kanes Furniture. On the other hand, given that kanes-furniture.net appears to hae been instrumental in channeling consumer complaints to the Florida AG which led to a suit against Kanes Furniture, there is an element of retaliation to this trademark suit which led to the shutting down of kanes-furniture.net. Via the St. Petersberg Times.
From the article referenced in the next item:
“We need to put in speed bumps to keep people honest,” said Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, which is lobbying federal regulators to require many devices to incorporate technology that prevents consumers from sending digital media files over the Internet. “If we don’t, our future is bleak.”
All right-thinking people like speed bumps – they keep children from getting run over. Is that what DRM systems are like?
This NY Times article is a must-read on digital rights management.
Law school hypo – Customer buys, let’s say a Tivo-enabled receiver from a satellite or cable tv provider. Vendor does not reveal to customer that the box contains DRM technology which vendor can enable remotely. Vendor does so, effectively prevent customer from engaging in legal behavior, such as copying for time-shifting purposes. Discuss the rights of the parties. Be sure to analyze under both state fraud laws and federal consumer protection statutes.
p.s. Here’s a starting point if you don’t get the Top Cat reference.
Via BNA Internet Law News we learn of a decision from the Eastern District of Louisiana, Greg Lloyd Smith v. Intercosmos Media, civ no. 02-1964 Section C, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 24251 (ED La Dec. 17). Plaintiffs brought state tort claims against Defendant, a domain name registrar. Plaintiffs claimed to have been libeled by various domain name registrations. The name of the domain registrants were fictitious and plaintiff advised the defendant, which did not block the websites and did not revoke the registrations for the domain names. Defendant argued that the state claims for defamation and libel and for damages and injunctive relief were preempted by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 230, and that the CDA provided immunity for all the claims. The plaintiffs also alleged claims for (a) negligent performance of duties of a domain-name registrar under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315; and (b) injunctive-relief claim for defamation.
Held: Defendant was immunized from liability for the negligence claim because it met the three requirements of the CDA immunity: (1) it qualified as an interactive service provider; (2) it was not the source of the alleged defamatory statements; and (3) the claim treated it as the publisher of the alleged defamatory statements. The claims for injunctive relief with regard to either defamation and libel, or negligence and fault under art. 2315, were precluded by the immunity afforded by 47 U.S.C.S. § 230(c)(1).
Irony: The CDA was supposed to encourage policing by intermediaries such as ISPs.
Strange Concept: Treating a domain name registrar as an ISP.
Strange Background: Google Greg Lloyd Smith Bonnier to get some strange background on plaintiff.
Bad Side Effect of Decision: Registrars will spend even less effort weeding out obviously fraudulent whois info.
But The Real Question Is: What Does Ernie Think?