jeffmarsh writes:>I believe that true "cybersquatters" (that is, the morons who
register TRADEMARKED names in an effort to sell them for a profit) deserve to have
their domains taken away.<
Agreed.
>Maybe PETA didn't like the fact that the
site was being used as a parody but that's really too bad. As far as I am aware,
parody is protected by the 1st amendment.<
From the montyroberts.org UDRP decision:
>Several
federal court decisions have held in similar circumstances that use of a registered
trademark in a domain name to attract Internet users to sites with competing or critical
views to those of the trademark holder are not protected by rights of fair use because
the competing trademark user is impermissibly taking advantage of the right holder’s
interest in its mark. In each case, the court makes clear that the competing user
is free to express its views in a forum established without exploitation of the mark
holder’s rights.<
Still to come are numerous disputes involving TMnamesucks.com
type sites. It will be interesting to see if they are transferred too. The case is
available through the link below and makes interesting reading for other reasons.
If you hyperlink to a commercial site then you're a commercial site? That has broad
implications. Better not be using a free hosting company that puts a banner on your
page. And what if you link to a free counter site that is a business? These rulings
get more and more bizarre.
>As a side note, has anybody read the WIPO decision
for eResolution.com. Isn't this a conflict of interest?<
Sure looked like it to
me. But who is in a position to rule on such conflicts? They are a law unto themselves.