I Found a Group That Loves the E-Parasite-Bill: Trademark Lawyers

by

I found a group today that loves the E-Parasite-Bill as well as the Protect IP bill.

Trademark Lawyers.

In a session on counterfeiting websites at the IP Law Institute today,  the panelists and the IP lawyer filed conference chatted about the E-Parasite-Bill as well as the Protect IP bill.

Seems that they love both.

“what of the two bills give the brandowners more protection?” a lawyer in the audience asked

“Well The E-Parasite Bill does because it gives brand owners a private right of action meaning they can sue violators while the Protect IP Bill only gives the Department of Justice the right to file an action.

Not one word was mentioned about the obligations placed on legitimate businesses under the bill, or the civil rights being trampled.

Also in the session its clear brands are a lot more concerned with sites and domain names that are involved in the sale of counterfeit goods than simple PPC pages.

Manufacturers have even set up their own counterfeit websites in order to get the names, address and IP of customers looking to buy the goods, as well as bulk buyers of the counterfeit  merchandise.

 

 

 

 

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which sold around 70K domain to Godaddy.com in December 2015 and now owns around 8K domain names . Michael was also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest.

Comments

  1. theo says

    The original concept of UDRP was ment todo justice and we all know what happend and how it works today.

    The IP protect and E-Parasite bill are ment to protect. A noble cause. I think we can predict what happens in the future..

  2. yes says

    so do they agree that border controls are an ongoing failure?

    correct the statements if wrong:

    this law only gets at how counterfeitors connect with customers. it does nothing to stop the production and flow of counterfeit goods into countries with strong ip protection.

    it’s like the vendors you used to see on the street in new york city many years ago selling counterfeit stuff, all laid out on the sidewalk.

    by analogy, the best this law does is try to prevent passers by from seeing these vendors. or maybe in rare cases it allows us to make the vendor pack up and move to another street corner.

    it’s sort of like trying to stop illegal drugs by only focusing on dealers. is that really going to be effective?

    at some point you have to find and go after the crops, raw materials and/or production facilities. and you have to stop the transport of contraband across borders.

    if passed, this law as written is not going to curb counterfeiting much, but it will have a major impact on other areas having nothing to do with counterfeiting.

  4. Stephen Sanders says

    The name chosen for this bill does seem to imply a very strong bias perhaps against those in the domain business, however when I learned a few more details, it seems that the issues are mainly about protecting the royalty rights of movies and music (from the link I followed above).

    I do not really feel that it is a good thing to hand “more power” to the US government regarding seizing foreign domains or tampering with DNS services, yet there clearly is some need to enforce the royalty rights of musicians and movie producers. The issue of IP (Intellectual Propert) and foreign countries will neither be easily, nor quickly resolved, however it could be seen as a major step in the wrong direction to allow for more US restriction of the World Wide Web based on this premise.

    Obviously allowing the government to restrict the internet in some subtle (or not very subtle) manner could be a move backwards for such things as Freedom of Speech or perhaps more importantly The Freedom Of Information Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966