The bill as a whole is similar to the Snowe Bill introduced in 2008 into the US Senate which seeks to prohibit and provide penalties for phishing, pharming, spyware, and cybersquatting.

Of course we have no problem against laws that stop the practices of phishing, pharming, spyware and Malware and there are laws on the books against most of that stuff already.

However we are always alarmed when trademark holders get lawmakers to broaden to current laws regarding trademarks as they relate to domain names and this bill should cause a lot of concern for all domainers, whether they live in Utah or not.

As all bills this one is long full of legalese but regarding Cybersquatting the bill states in part as follows:

“A person is liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name, which is a mark for purposes of this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the person or the mark’s owner, the person:

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark, including a personal name; and

(ii) for any length of time registers, acquires, traffics in, or uses a domain name in, or belonging to, any person in this state that:
(A) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to the mark;

(B) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the Domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of the mark; or

(C) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of 18 U.S.C. 706 or 36 U.S.C. 220506.
(b) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described in Subsection (1)(a), a court may consider all relevant factors, including:

(A) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(B) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(C) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(D) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(E) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(F) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign, or solicitation of the purchase, transfer, or assignment of the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(G) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(H) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names that the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to another’s mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain names, or is dilutive of another’s famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the person or the mark owner; and

(I) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous.…

Stevens, is running for re-election this year

This post was submitted by Edwin Sherman.…

“”"I am the owner of a large web development company about to embark on a project for …………. and noticed you are inappropriately squatting on and selling their rightful domain name.  I am writing this on his behalf and at the moment offering you a settlement now of $50 to transfer ownership of ……………………………  to my client.  The other option is our pursuit of legal action down a long winded trial process which you will lose and end up paying all of our legal fees and will have to hand over the domain anyway.  Or we will go after you for cybersquatting and you will have to pay a fine of $100,000.  My client has been operating in this space for over 10 years under the business name …………….. .us and has full legal right to the .COM  Please contact me to discuss further. Thank you.”"

Here was our answer:

“”"We have been in business for over 15 years and have never lost a domain in a legal proceeding.

I have never heard of a case where the owner of a .us was awarded a .com based on the ownership of a .us domain.  If you have a reference in which this occurred we would like to see the citation.

To attempt to make a claim for a domain, you would have to had a federally registered trademark, dated prior to our registration, which you don’t, and you would also have to prove that the mark was famous, which yours is not.

We will not lose this name to you and will hold you responsible for all our legal fees if you bring this frivolous action.”"

So after receiving our answer I received this e-mail back:

“”"Worth trying. Thank you for the valuable info.

 What is a reasonable amount you would sell the domain name for?” “”"

We get e-mails and letters like this every few weeks.  People having no claim or right to a domain, trying to get them to give it to them based on some ridiculous argument.  No trademark, no brand, no nothing.

If the Snowe bill passes these letters will increase 20 fold, but instead of threatening $100,000 fine, they are going to threaten, contacting the FTC, the Attorney General of the state they live in, the Attorney General of the state you live in, and threaten fines of up to 6 Million.…