North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: An example of reverse-hijack (was: new.net: yet another dns names pace overlay play)
This brings to mind AOLSearch.com which was stolen from a group of African Historians? (someone correct me if I'm wrong here I'm doing this from memory) because they didn't have the suite # on their address... Something about NSI canceling the domain and giving it to AOL due to a incorrect address. Also.. when I looked into the AOL.ORG fiasco, I remember distinctly that AOL.COM was registered after AOL.ORG by some time.. interesting to think of what would have happened had andy not followed the "rules" and registered a .com for himself.. On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:18:57AM -0600, Doane, Andrew wrote: > > Scott, > > I registered "aol.org" in 1995. It stood for "Andy On-Line" (my name). I > used it for almost five years without any problems from America Online, > mainly for email and to ftp back into my home network, etc. I did not have > a website up. > > America Online sued and won a judgment without even my being present. They > stated that it violated their trademark of "AOL", as they had used it first > in commerce. They used the fact that I had no web site at www.aol.org to > justify this claim, ignoring the fact that their was an MX record and some > other A records. > > A few "interesting facts": > > 1. In 1995, even if America On-Line wanted to registered .org they couldn't. > Back then the rules were followed, and .org was for "private organizations > and individuals". I registered it as an individual for non-commerce use. > So their argument that they used it in commerce first is moot - as a .org > domain you weren't supposed to. > > 2. America Online just recently acquired the right to protect "AOL" from the > courts. Traditionally speaking, initials cannot be trademarked. If a > company reaches "household word" status then they can get protection. IBM > and GM would be examples. In 1995 when I registered aol.org, America Online > did NOT have this protection. > > 3. Network solutions suspended the domain without warning by request of > America On-Line. My phone calls to network solutions resulted in "call this > person", which turned out to be America On-Line's attorneys. NS did this > before America Online had received a judgment from the court. > > 4. Network Solutions and America Online claim they tried to reach me. They > didn't. The address on WHOIS was wrong, however the email addresses and > phone numbers were valid. Very convenient for them. However, the > automatically generated renewal notice that I needed to pay my $35/year fee > from NS made it to me. Funny, eh? > > 5. I hired an attorney to fight it, not because I wanted cash out on America > Online (in fact, I didn't ask for this - I just wanted my personal domain > back that I had been using for almost 5 years without issue). The net > result was it would have cost me a mint to fight it against a multi-billion > dollar company with endless resources. I caved and just let them have it. > > To date, they have not used it. They blackholed the domain. Someone > explain the point in that. Obviously they felt people could confuse > "aol.com" and "aol.org". So much so that they pointed www.aol.org to > www.aol.com? No. So much that they put in MX records so email accidentally > sent to [email protected] got delivered or at least a response back to the > person who sent the email that they have the email address wrong? No. > > Big business wins against the individual by manipulating our government to > draft legislation in their favor and then using it after the fact. > > There's your example. > > -Andrew > NOT [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Gifford [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:16 AM > To: William Allen Simpson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play > > > > William Allen Simpson <[email protected]> writes: > > > Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote: > > > > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder. > > > > > > Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently > > > reverse-hijack domains > > > > Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the > > better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. > > Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned. > > > > Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision? > > Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by > "reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is > "walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up > criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently > claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual > trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site, > and ICANN somehow agreed. > > I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall > seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if > you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up. > > -----ScottG. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Steven Noble / Network Janitor / Be free my soul and leave this world alone : : My views = My views != The views of any of my past or present employers : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|