In a story a couple of days ago the University of Hawaii (UH)  is none to happy that someone registered universityofhawaii.xxx and put up some porn on the domain and is trying to sell the domain name on eBay.com for $100K.

The UH has already threatening the porn web site operator with legal action if it doesn’t stop using the school’s name as its domain name and has given the site until Friday to stop using its name or the university has threatened to file a suit a federal suit.

Now “UH wants lawmakers to consider amending a bill on unauthorized computer use to include fraudulent use of Internet domain names.”

“We believe that individuals who willfully and purposely attempt to profit through misleading the public by misrepresenting governmental organizations should also be held accountable as the wrongdoers they are,” wrote University of Hawaii President M.R.C. Greenwood in written testimony to the State Senate Committee on Economic Development and Technology.”

“The committee’s chair, State Sen. Carol Fukunaga, said Wednesday she planned to work with the university to amend the bill to incorporate UH officials’ concerns.”

“One approach might be to update Hawaii’s decade-old statutes on ‘cybersquatting’ to include the fraudulent use of domain names, such as the kind of malicious representation we are now seeing.”

“I think it’s important to us that people who try to besmirch us don’t get to do it without some penalty,” Greenwood said.

It would be yet another attempt by the state to regulate the Internet.

However there is an old saying in the legal profession that basically says bad facts make bad law.

In this case, it could only take one domain name registration for a state to impose criminal and/or civil sanctions on those who register domain names.

 …

While we usually post the relevant facts and findings by the panel this case can be summed up citing this finding of the panel:

“”This case ultimately turns on the quality of Respondent’s evidence.”

“In this regard, however, the Panel notes Respondent has not submitted any evidence that it has established a right or legitimate interest in the <tommybahamasucks.com> domain name. In the end, this lack of evidence proves fatal for Respondent.

“While the attorney for Respondent does allege that Respondent has plans to create a criticism site at “www.tommybahamasucks.com” this assertion is not evidence because attorney argument is not evidence. ”

“In this context, the Panel is forced to question the accuracy of Respondent’s assertion. If Respondent did indeed have a legitimate intent to create a criticism site, then the Panel believes Respondent most likely had documentary evidence detailing the preparation of the site and could have submitted these documents as evidence in support of its allegation. On the other hand, the fact Respondent did not submit any evidence on this point tends to undermine Respondent’s assertion.”

“Respondent also asserts that it chose to rely on the concerned registrar to create a “parked” website while it developed its criticism site, and that it receives no monetary benefit from click-through opportunities, despite the fact the “parked” website contains click-through options. ”

“The Panel notes it is impossible to determine whether this assertion is correct because no evidence has been submitted to verify this claim.”

“However, even assuming the assertion is correct, and Respondent never had an intent to secure commercial gain from the domain name, the “parked” website remains a commercial website with click-through opportunities to existing businesses and is not a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name despite the lack of monetary enrichment to Respondent.”

“As such, the “parked” website does not establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name.”

Bottom line if you own a “sucks” domain of a famous brand you better use it as intended by putting some content on it and using it as a grip site.…

Here are the relevant facts and finding from the three member panel:

“The Complainant is a Mexican individual who founded a business named Solanum Laboratories in Mexico in 2003.”

“The Complainant is the owner of a variety of Mexican registered trademarks for the word mark SOLANUM, the earliest registered of which is trademark number 901,941 registered on September 28, 2005″

“At the date of this Decision, the website associated with the disputed domain name consisted of a parking page which stated that the disputed domain name was for sale and provided hyperlinks described as “related searches” including “Resveratrol Juice”, “Colageno msm”, “Energy”, “Fusion” and “Best Resveratrol Brand”.”

“In the present dispute, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based upon its submissions that the Respondent is not known by the name “Solanum”; the Respondent neither has the Complainant’s authorization nor the Complainant’s license or franchise to use the disputed domain name; and there is no relation between the Respondent’s name and the disputed domain name from which any right or legitimate interest can be inferred. The burden of production accordingly shifts to the Respondent.”

“The Respondent’s submissions focus squarely on the fact that it was making a bona fide offering of goods or services at the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy) via pay-per-click parking directly related to the generic nature and definition of the word which comprises the disputed domain name, namely “solanum”, a genus of plants. ”

“In the present case, the Respondent provides a sworn statement averring that it is a professional domainer which regularly engages in the business of using domain names to display advertising links.”

“It also provides evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain name is a dictionary word. ”

“Furthermore, there is neither any evidence that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or distinctive trademark nor that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. ”

“The Panel notes in addition that the advertising configured by the Respondent to appear on the website associated with the disputed domain name (at least when viewed from the Respondent’s jurisdiction) is related to the dictionary meaning of the word “solanum”, namely the relevant plants or extracts derived from them, and does not appear to relate to the trademark value of the Complainant’s SOLANUM trademark.”

“In the circumstances of the present case, given that the Respondent was seeking to register a dictionary word, albeit by automated means, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s actions can be considered to be sufficient good faith efforts to avoid the registration and use of a domain name that was identical to a mark held by another.…

The 36 page federal suit was filed on January 27th in the Central District of California, including over 8 pages which just lists the domain names at issue.

This is not the first time that Verizon has sued DirectNic.

The suit asks $100,000 per domain in statutory damages, the transfer of all domain names to Verizon, the disgorgement of all amounts generated from the domains and other damages.

Here are some of the domains cited in the suit

2verizon.net

3verizon.com

4verizon.net

5verizon.net

6verizon.com

6verizon.net

5verizon.com

8verizon.com

8verizon.net

9verizon.net

accessoriesforverizon.com

activatemyfiosverizon.net

amberzon.com

berizone.com

berizone.net

berizonwireless.net

businessverizon.net

cenzon.com

cerizon.net

cerizonwireless.net

chicagoverizon.com

dlsverizon.com

downloadfreeringtoneverizon.com

dverizon.com

dverizon.net

esnetwork.com

evrizonwireless.net

ferizonwireless.net

flagstaffverizon.com

flagstaffverizonphones.com

flagstaffverizonwireless.com

freeverizoncellphonewallpaper.com

frizone.com

fverizon.com

gamesvenzon.com

gerizon.net

gerizonwireless.net

goodfridayatverizonamphitheatre.com

gvenzon.com

gverizon.net

homeverizon.com

hverizon.net

jverizon.com

jverizon.net

kverizon.net

lverizonwireless.com

mobileverizonwireless.com

mobileverizonwireless.net

mverizon.net

myaccountatverizonwireless.com

myaccountatwwwverizonwireless.com

myvenxon.com

myvenzom.com

myverizionwireless.com

myverzon.com

myvtnzon.com

newverizonringtones.com

nverizon.net

phoneverizon.com

phoneverizon.net

phoneverizonwireless.com

pverizon.net

questverizon.com

quickverizon.net

qvenzon.com

veenzon.com

qverizon.net

qwestverizone.com

vefizon.net

qwestvrizon.com

vefrizonwireless.com

rvenzon.com

rverizon.net

rversong.com

uvenzon.com

vaenzon.com

vanzon.com

vcenzon.com

vernzon.com

verizonwireless.net

verinwireless.com

ve5izonwireless.net

vedizonwireless.net

vedrizonwireless.com

veerizonwireless.net

vefizonwireless.net

veirzonwireless.net

veisonvcast.com

veisonwireless.com

veizonwirless.com

vensone.com

vensonn.com

venszon.com

venzoj.com

venzomn.com

venzoncup.com

venzong.com

venzongames.com

venzonmensajes.com

venzonmyp1x.com

venzonopenaccess.com

venzonprepay.com

venzonstgnup.com

venzonvenus.com

venzonvoyagers.com

venzony.com

venzonz.com

verazionwireless.com

verazonwireles.com

verazonwireless.com

verfizonwireless.com

verhizon.com

veriaonwireless.net

verikzon.com

verinzonwireless.com

verioh.com

verionfios.com

verionphones.com

veriontracker.com

veriozen.com

veriozionwireless.com

verisonbusiness.com

verisoncellular.com

verisonfiostv.com

verisonlgvoyager.com

verizlnwireless.net

verisonmobile.com

verisonmusic.com

verisonvireless.com

verisonwireles.com

verixoncentral.com

verizinfios.com

verizioncellphones.com

verizionjobs.com

verizionwhitepages.com

verizionwirelessrebates.com

verizionwirelss.com

verizionwirerless.com

verizionwirles.com

verizizon.net

verizkn.net

verizknwireless.com

verizknwireless.net

verizln.net

verizn.net

veriznowireless.net

veriznwireless.net

verizobwireless.net

verizodsl.com

verizoh.net

verizohn.com

verizohwireless.net

verizojn.com

verizojwireless.net

verizomfios.com

verizomwireless.net

verizon-mifi.com

verizon-phone.net

verizon-ringtones.net

verizon-wireles.net

verizon.com

verizon22.net

verizon3.net

verizon3ireless.net

verizon4.com

verizon4.net

verizon6.com

verizon6.net

verizon7.com

verizon7.net

verizon8.com

verizon8.net

verizon9.net

verizona.net

verizonaccessories.net

verizonaccessory.com

verizonaccessory.net

verizonaccount.com

verizonaireless.net

verizonbestoffer.com

verizonbilling.com

verizonc.net

verizoncelllphone.com

verizoncellphone.com

verizoncellulor.com

verizoncenter.net

verizoncentertickets.com

verizoncentertickets.net

verizoncom.net

verizonconferencecall.net

verizoncorporateservices.com

verizond.net

verizondirect.com

verizondiscounts.com

verizondslmail.com

verizondslservice.net

verizonecom.com

verizonecom.net

verizoneireless.net

verizonemessaging.com

verizonemessaging.net

verizonephones.com

verizonewireless.net

verizonewirelesss.com

verizonexpress.com

verizonf.com

verizonf.net

verizonfears.com

verizonfeos.com

verizonfiosintemet.com

verizonfioz.com

verizonflagstaff.com

verizonh.net

verizonhawai.com

verizoni.net

verizonimpulse.com

verizoninpulse.com

verizonintranet.com

verizonireless.net

verizoniwreless.net

verizonj.net

verizonjob.com

verizonjuke.com

verizonk.com

verizonk.net

verizonmessage.net

verizonmificost.com

verizonmifipricing.com

verizonmireless.com

verizonmobilephones.com…

The ACTA is being treated as by the US as an Executive Agreement rather than a treaty.  A treaty would have to be approved by the Senate, while an Executive Agreement can just be signed by the President.

President Obama signed the ACTA a few months ago.

According to Thejournal.ie,  Ireland and the EU are suppose to sign the Agreement tomorrow as well.

Other countries that have signed or are considering signing it are include;  Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland.

“”The treaty has been secretly negotiated behind the scenes between governments with little or no public input. The Bush administration started the process, but the Obama administration has aggressively pursued it.”

This is what the Electron Frontier Foundation (EFF) says about the ACTA:

“”ACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil liberties for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet legitimate commerce and for developing countries’ ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development.”"

“”ACTA is being negotiated by a select group of industrialized countries outside of existing international multilateral venues for creating new IP norms such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and (since TRIPs) the World Trade Organization. Both civil society and developing countries are intentionally being excluded from these negotiations. While the existing international fora provide (at least to some extent) room for a range of views to be heard and addressed no such checks and balances will influence the outcome of the ACTA negotiations”".

“”The Fact Sheet published by the USTR together with the USTR’s 2008 “Special 301″ report make it clear that the goal is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement above the current internationally-agreed standards in the TRIPs Agreement and increased international cooperation including sharing of information between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies.

“”"While little information has been made available by the governments negotiating ACTA a document recently leaked to the public entitled “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement” from an unknown source gives an indication of what content industry rightsholder groups appear to be asking for – including new legal regimes to “encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material” criminal measures and increased border search powers.…

“Plaintiffs make such requests even though they cannot identify any authority requiring ICANN to insist on competitive bidding or contractual price constraints in contracts for new TLDs and acknowledge that ICANN’s operations (including its recommendations for new TLDs and registry contracts) are subject to review by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”).”"

“In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.

“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.

“I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.”…

“The  indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. ”

The Justice Department said in a statement said that:

“”Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. ”

“”Dotcom, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand, and a dual citizen of Finland and Germany, made more than $42 million from the conspiracy in 2010 alone, according to the indictment.”

According to cnet.com a total of 7 people were been named in the indictment and four suspects have been taken into custody.

“DotCom and three others were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand by New Zealand police, who “who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States,” the Justice Department.”

“Along with Dotcom, Kim Tim Jim Vestor, 37, a resident of Hong Kong and New Zealand was also arrested. ”

“Authorities say that Dotcom founded Megaupload and is the director and sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites. ”

“They have been charged in Virginia with crimes related to online piracy, including racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, and conspiring to commit money laundering.”

It would seem to me if the Feds have the ability to make arrests based on current laws, even on companies, citizens and sites that live and operate in countries outside of the US, laws like SOPA and PIPA are not needed.

 …

There were two Complainants Phones4U Limited and Mobileserv Limited of Staffordshire UK.

Here are the relevant fact and findings by the three member panel:

“”Each of the Complainants is an English company within the Phones4U group of companies (“Group”), trading in the UK under the “Phones4U” name since May 1995, whereby Mobileserv Limited is the immediate parent company (“Parent”) of Phones4U Limited, which is the primary trading entity within the Group, being a retailer of mobile phones and mobile phone services in the UK.

Through the Parent, the Complainants own and/or have rights in various registrations for the PHONES4U trade mark in Europe and the UK, including a Community Trade Mark for a PHONES4U device mark registered on February 11, 2000, and two registrations in the UK for a word mark registered on November 10, 2006, and a device mark registered on October 22, 2010. Phones4U Limited has also held various domain name registrations incorporating PHONES4U, since May 30, 1997, including <phones4u.co.uk>, <phone4u.co.uk>, <phones4ufinance.com> and <phones4udirect.com>.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 21, 2003, by a registrant identified by the Respondent as Ultimate Search Inc.

“”The Complainants contend that the Respondent is not connected or associated with either of the Complainants’ businesses and is not on any other basis licensed or authorised to use its PHONES4U mark. ”

“Further, the Complainants submit that the Respondent is not known by the “Phones4U” name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and therefore the Respondent now has the burden of proving that it does possess such rights or legitimate interests.”

“The Panel accepts that the Complainants have not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use the PHONES4U trade mark.”

“The Panel also notes that there is no evidence, whether put forward by the Respondent or otherwise, that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and finds that the use of the Website as a “link farm” to host numerous sponsored links  precludes any argument that the Disputed Domain Name is being used on a noncommercial basis. ”

“As such, the Respondent  needs to demonstrate that it acquired rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name through use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”

“The Panel accepts that use of a website to host PPC sponsored links is capable of conferring rights or legitimate interests in the relevant domain name on the registrant and/or website operator, particularly where the domain name in question consists of a dictionary or generic word or phrase, and the domain name is reasonably related to the content of the links hosted ”

“On the facts of the present case, the Disputed Domain Name arguably consists of a generic phrase (“phones for you”), whereby the phonetic abbreviation of the words “for you” to “4u” (which itself, is a generic or common abbreviation) does little if anything to distinguish the original phrase.…

The three member panel found that the term is generic, the Spanish word for liberty.

There is an interesting discussion on the topic of latches as the complainant waited some 12 years to bring this complaint and also a dissenting opinion by the Honorable Neil Brown who thought like I do, that the complainant certainly waited too long to bring the complaint.

Here are the relevant facts and discussion.

The Complainant was Libertad Servicios Financieros, of  Mexico

“The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations for LIBERTAD (and variations thereof) in Mexico, the earliest of which, according to the certificates provided by the Complainant, was registered in December 1990. ”

“The Complainant also operates websites at two domain names, held by Abastecedora de Conectividad, S.A. de C.V., incorporating LIBERTAD, namelyand, the registrations for which date from July 13, 1998 and June 26, 2009 respectively.”

The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on February 23, 1999. As at the date of this decision, and goes to a parked page

“”Prior to addressing its findings in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel will address the Respondent’s contention that the Complaint should be barred on the basis of the Complainant’s delay in filing the Complaint after the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. ”

“It is commonly accepted that the doctrine of laches does not apply under the Policy, and that a delay in bringing an action does not prevent a complainant from recovering a domain name (See paragraph 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant is not prevented from recovering the Disputed Domain Name by virtue of it bringing these proceedings 12 years after the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.”

“The Panel notes that the WIPO UDRP decision cited by the Respondent in its Supplemental Submissions, in support of its argument for applying the doctrine of laches, namely Converse Trading, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1616, expressly recognises the view held by many panelists that “the doctrine of laches, as such does, not generally apply under the UDRP; and that delay in bringing a complaint does not of itself prevent a complainant from filing under the UDRP, or from being able to succeed under the UDRP, where a complainant can establish a case on the merits under the requisite three elements.”

“Further, the Panel notes that the panel in this previous UDRP decision does not state a preference for the (minority) view that the doctrine of laches / delay should be applied, but merely that arguments for both views were heeded in its decision.…