[bc-gnso] interesting developments in a US cybersquatting case involving private registrations

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

here's the argument, from TransAmerica, that persuaded the judge that Moniker 
was acting as more that a registrar, and thus not immune from the ACPA;

> In this case, Transamerica alleges that Oversee and the Moniker Defendants, 
> together with the ostensible registrants – the John Doe Defendants – are the 
> de facto registrants of the domain names in question. Transamerica claims 
> that Moniker was not merely acting as a registrant in providing registration 
> services to the John Doe Defendants for the infringing domain names, but 
> instead was part of a scheme to profit from the use of the infringing names. 
> As Transamerica points out, Moniker receives a fee each time an internet user 
> clicks on one of the links attached to the infringing domain sites; such 
> payment establishes at least partial ownership in the domain name. (See 
> Hearing 63, 67). Transamerica’s Amended Complaint alleges that Moniker Online 
> provides registration services, Moniker Privacy protects the identity of the 
> ostensible registrant, and Oversee provides the monetization service to the 
> domain name. (See id. at 65). Together, these three Defendants are part of a 
> scheme by which they profit from the misuse of others’ trade and service 
> marks. (See id.). These allegations, taken as true as they must be on a Rule 
> 12(b)(6) motion, satisfy the requirement that Defendants be acting as more 
> than registrars so as to strip them of immunity under the ACPA.

here's the link to the article;

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/14/judge-nixes-monikers-motion-to-dismiss-repercussions-for-domain-registrars/

mikey


- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)