Thank you for your opinion. As noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the Corinthians case, The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) attempts to balance protection for trademark holders from cybersquatters with protection for rightful domain owners from trademark owners who abusively assert their trademark rights to effect "reverse domain name hijacking." The Appellate court maked the following observation in the Corinthian case:
"[i]n the past confusingly similar trademarks could exist simultaneously in different geographical areas or in different business sectors without creating consumer confusion. The internet has drastically changed this situation because a domain name is both unique and global in scope."
In fact, in the Corinthians' case, the Brazilian Corporation, Corinthians Licenciamentos, LTDA, unsuccessfully argued before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it was NOT a "mark owner" because it had not registered "Corinthians" as a U.S. trademark, attempting to remove the dispute from the umbrella of protection for American, domain name holders provided by ACPA with regard to reverse domain name hijacking, especially with regard to the statutory provision of the ACPA at 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v):
"A domain name registrant whose name has been suspended, disabled, or transferred under a policy described under clause (ii)(II) may, upon notice to the mark owner, file a civil action to establish that the registration or use of the domain name by such registrant is not unlawful under this chapter."
In rejecting the Brazilian Corporation's ploy, the Appellate court made the following observation in its analysis of trademark interests versus domain name holder interests:
"[i]t would be very odd if Congress, which was well aware of the international nature of trademark disputes, protected Americans against reverse domain name hijacking only when a registered mark owner was doing the hijacking. Such a policy would permit American citizens, whose domain names are subject to WIPO transfer orders, to get relief against abusive mark owners that have registered in the U.S., but not against abusive mark owners that have not registered (including both foreign mark owners and domestic mark owners that have not registered). It would leave registrants unprotected against reverse domain hijackers so long as the hijackers are not registered with the PTO [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]."
It is the position of the Free Speech Center that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) proceedings pursuant to the ICANN mandated Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) have become a "kangaroo court" where abusive, foreign trademark owners with questionable marks can "buy" a UDRP ruling, allowing the abusive, foreign trademark owners to strip domain names from rightful, American domain name owners. The Free Speech Center will be offering the "FACT Project" in the near future, and it will provide pro-bono, (volunteer) legal representation in United States District Court for Americans victimized by WIPO orchestrated reverse domain name hijacking.
Additionally, the Free Speech Center is preparing a Resolution 1503 Complaint for filing with the United Nations, High Commissioner on Human Rights, Geneva Switzerland, to challenge WIPO, a member agency of the United Nations, with regard to its flagrant violations of Article 19, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights with regard to global, Internet free speech:
Article 19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
|
