Go Daddy was not liable for a form of trademark infringement when a system that the domain name registrar operates was used to redirect visitors from allegedly 'cybersquatting' web domain names to a pornographic website, a US court has ruled. Petronas, the national oil company of Malaysia, had argued that Go Daddy was in breach …
Too much legalese... Can't... Think...
Seriously, would it be possible to explain in less detail, but more clearly? Half of the paragraphs in the article are direct quotes from the ruling. I can understand that courts need to use such language, but the Reg does not. Would you report a new scientific discovery by quoting half of the original article?
"A claim for contributory cybersquatting does not exist under the circumstances of this case, as a company providing an internet routing service does not exercise the type of direct control and monitoring that would justify recognition of a contributory infringement claim"
Why force this on your readers?
Its all for the money!
I think actions like these should result in a judge rolling back previous decisions since it has become very obvious that in this case the company doesn't seek "justice" (its our name and we want to use it for our company) but only seeks money.
If you want proof of that simply go to "www.petronastower.net" and watch nothing happening. Then go to "http://www.petronastwintowers.com.my" and amazing! A website pops up. If not having the domain "petronastower.net" was such a big deal, then why hasn't it been put in use already, now almost 2 years later ?
Added up to this whole ordeal and I think its becoming quite clear that the company in question isn't into protecting their online rights but only the contents of their wallet. Whats next? Sueing El Reg because they dared to allow us peasants to comment on all this, so basically dragging their "good name" through the mud ?
"What's the big deal?"
You're seriously asking why a company hasn't registered every domain that can be related to its name, with every suffix available?
No, I'm not. What gave you that idea?
I'm saying that this company isn't after this particular domain to protect their good name,all they're after is money. Which has been demonstrated IMO by trying to sue GoDaddy.
Because if misuse of the domain was such a big deal (enough to force someone to give it up), why didn't they point it to their website the very moment they got hold of it back in 2010?
> What gave you that idea?
Its a logical extension and implication of what you said. You're criticising the company because they haven't got websites against all these stupid names, and making the rather comical assertion that a company with turnover in excess of 200 billion dollars is indulging in this court case for the sake of damages up to 100,000 dollars maximum.
In a logical and rational DNS system, as opposed to one which is designed for the registrars to gouge as much money as possible, an organisation would only need to use and register a single domain in each country, and cybersquat, typoalikes and all the other means that lowlives use to gain trafic from other folks names...
Part of this makes no sense whatsoever and smells very bad.
The judge said that Petronas could lose their trademark over this?
WTF? Has that judge completely lost their mind?
The ruling that Petronas can't hold GoDaddy liable makes sense, as they only provide a service and aren't (yet) legally responsible for policing it, but suggesting that means GoDaddy can countersue and deprive Petronas of their trademark stinks to high heaven.
The correct ruling would be to say that GoDaddy are not liable, award costs accordingly and reject the case.
According to the rest of the ruling, GoDaddy have no stake in this *whatsoever*, so they shouldn't suffer the legal costs of defence *or be permitted to go after Petronas either*.
The judge hasn't lost his mind, he is just point out what the law says.
When you register a trademark, and those rights are granted (it isn't automatic) you don't get all-exclusive rights to use mark for anything you want. Your rights are limited to the area of trade to which you were granted the rights.
So The Register can have rights on "Register" for publishing, someone else can have rights to "Register" for point of sale systems, someone else can have rights to "Register" for a heating system, and someone could even make a car and call it the "Register". All are different areas of trade, and none of the trademarks are in conflict with each other, as long as they stay within their areas of trade. ALL of them have rights to register and use a domain name containing their common mark.
So Apple Computer can have a mark on Apple, and Apple Records can have a mark on Apple, and there is no problem. When both entered the music publishing business, however, there became a problem - and Steve Jobs lost because he didn't have rights to use "apple" to distribute music.
When a trademark holder uses the trademark beyond their granted area of trade, they are diluting their mark. If they dilute their mark, they can have their mark invalidated. A smart trademark owner amends his filing before entering an additional area of trade so that doesn't happen.
Petronas aparently doesn't have any rights to the name when it comes to pornography. In claiming rights, the judge found that Petronas was doing so falsely, and in doing so was diluting their mark.
This wasn't so much about saying that GoDaddy could go after Petronas, as much as it was a a slap against Petronas and their legal counsil for even filing the suite. Basicly telling Petronas that they don't have a leg to stand on, and that if they keep wasting everyones time that they may loose a lot more than some minorl legal fees.
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too thick to handle email
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Is your home or office internet gateway one of '1.2 MILLION' wide open to hijacking?