|
Rosemont's PR department bought these URL's
Ever wonder why the organization "Save the
Scenic Santa Rita's" website URL is "www.scenicsantaritas.org"
and not "www.savethescenicsantaritas.org". Why, because Augusta/Rosemont's PR firm
owned
the URL that the organization would have preferred to use. Augusta
Executives agreed to release the URL and I was notified by SSSR on August 25,
2008 that if you now type www.savethescenicsantaritas.org
you will be redirected to the save the scenic santa rita's website.
Thanks to Augusta for releasing the URL so the appropriate organization can use
it.
Strongpoint also owns "stoprosemont.com"
Click
here to see the report and Augusta owns "norosemontmine.com". Augusta
didn't even bother to go through the PR firm, their
name is on this one. Try typing in www.norosemontmine.com
and see that it directs you to Rosemont coppers website. I wonder how many other website names they own?
I wonder if any laws have been
broken? Is it legal to purchase domain names with the intent of preventing
a non profit organization, whose goal is to educate the public, from using that
name? Haven't Rosemont's ACTIONS clearly shown that they have done
everything in there power to stop the public from getting a fair shake during the scoping
process? If so are there any laws preventing this behavior? Are
there any lawyers out there who would know? Read about the flawed
scoping process.
WHOIS
REPORTS
Here
is one owned by save the scenic santa ritas organization
Registrant:
Domains
by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: SCENICSANTARITAS.COM
Created on: 09-Apr-06
Expires on: 09-Apr-10
Last Updated on: 10-Mar-08
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration SCENICSANTARITAS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains
by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599
Technical Contact:
Private, Registration SCENICSANTARITAS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains
by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599
Here are the
versions of savethescenicsantaritas.com that were owned by Strongpoint
Domain
Name: savethescenicsantaritas.com
Domain
Name: savethescenicsantaritas.net
Domain
Name: savethescenicsantaritas.org
Domain
Name: savethescenicsantaritas.info
Registrant:
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
#101
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: SAVETHESCENICSANTARITAS.COM
Created on: 27-Apr-06
Expires on: 27-Apr-10
Last Updated on: 14-Feb-08
Administrative Contact:
Dey, James jimd@strongpt.com
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
5207951566
Technical Contact:
Dey, James jimd@strongpt.com
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
5207951566
Contact Strongpoint
48
North Tucson Blvd
Suite 106
Tucson, AZ 85716
(520) 795-1566 phone
(520) 795-3685 fax
Here
is another one owned by Strongpoint
Registrant:
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
#101
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: STOPROSEMONT.COM
Created on: 27-Apr-06
Expires on: 27-Apr-10
Last Updated on: 14-Feb-08
Administrative Contact:
Dey, James jimd@strongpt.com
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
5207951566
Technical Contact:
Dey, James jimd@strongpt.com
Strongpoint
48 N Tucson Blvd
Tucson, Arizona 85716
United States
5207951566
Here is one owned by Augusta
Registrant:
Augusta Resource
4500 Cherry Creek S. Dr. #1040
Denver, Colorado 80246
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NOROSEMONTMINE.COM
Created on: 22-May-07
Expires on: 22-May-09
Last Updated on:
Administrative Contact:
Resource, Augusta jimd@strongpt.com
4500 Cherry Creek S. Dr. #1040
Denver, Colorado 80246
United States
(303) 300-0135
Technical Contact:
Resource, Augusta jimd@strongpt.com
4500 Cherry Creek S. Dr. #1040
Denver, Colorado 80246
United States
(303) 300-0135
Domain Names And Trademark Law
In the United States, a domain name is viewed as a piece of property that
can be sued. The basis for this situation is a law passed by Congress in
1999 called the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (ACPA).
We tend to think of cybersquatting in pretty direct terms: buying
McDonalds.tv or Microsoft.net in hopes of making a huge profit when the
companies in question buy the rights to those domain names. However, some
companies refuse to play that game and file complaints even if the domain
name owner has been using the name for his or her own business, isn't a
competitor, and has no interest in selling the name at a profit.
Trademark holders got another boost from the Internet Commission on Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) when ICANN introduced a process for handling
domain name disputes. Called the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Process
(UDRP), it was established as a way to handle domain disputes without
lawsuits.
In order to win under the UDRP, a trademark holder must prove three points:
1.. The domain name is identical or could be easily confused with its
trademark
2.. The domain holder has no legitimate interest in the domain
3.. The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith
During its first year, over 1000 disputes were settled through the UDRP and
the trademark holder won 76% of those cases.
Anti-Cybersquatting Piracy Act (ACPA)
Lanham Act S. 43(d)
15 U.S.C. S.1125(d)
Under the newly enacted section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, trademark holders
now have a cause of action against anyone who, with a bad faith intent to
profit from the goodwill of another's trademark, registers, traffics in, or
uses a domain name that is identical to, or confusingly similar to a
distinctive mark, or dilutive of a famous mark, without regard to the goods
or services of the parties. As with the UDRP, the legislation outlines
indicators of bad faith and legitimate use defenses.
The following factors will be considered in determining whether a domain
name has been registered in bad faith. The first four would count against
a
determination of bad faith while the remainder would weigh in favor of a bad
faith determination.
1.. If registrant has any trademark or other intellectual property rights
in the name.
2.. If this is the legal or nickname of the registrant.
3.. The registrant's prior use of the domain name in connection with the
good faith offering of goods and services.
According to the legislative history the defendant will have
the burden
of introducing evidence of lawful use. Note that while the UDRP provides a
defense if the domain name registrant has made demonstrable preparations to
use the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services, the
legislation only provides a defense if there is prior use - not simply
preparation to use.
4.. Lawful noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a web site under the
domain name.
According to the legislative history fair use includes
comparative
advertising, comment, criticism, or parody - even where done for profit.
However, simply establishing a web site with a fair use, if the actual
intent is to sell, will not allow a cybersquatter to avoid a bad faith
determination.
5.. Intent to divert to a site that could harm the trademark owner's
goodwill - either for commercial gain or with intent to tarnish by creating
likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, or
endorsement of the site.
6.. Offer to sell the domain name without having used, or having an
intent
to use, it in the bona fide offering of goods or services, or a prior
pattern of such conduct.
Language in the legislative history specifically indicates
that this
section is not supposed to apply to a party who registers a name with the
bona fide intent to launch a new product or company but then abandons that
plan and sells the name to a trademark holder.
7.. Intentional provision of misleading contact information in the domain
name registration application or the history of such conduct.
8.. Warehousing of multiple domain names known to be identical or
confusingly similar to distinctive marks or dilutive of famous marks,
without regard to the goods or services of the parties.
According to the legislative history, cybersquatters have
been able to
avoid liability by not being the one to initiate or offer to sell. Now,
sitting on such marks is sufficient evidence of bad faith and an offer to
sell is not required.
9.. The extent to which a mark is distinctive or famous.
Under the legislative history, the more distinctive or famous
a mark is,
the more likely the Trademark owner will deserve relief.
The legislation specifically provides that bad faith intent shall not be
found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed,
and had reasonable grounds to believe, that the use of the domain name was a
fair use or otherwise lawful. The legislation fails to address whether
knowledge of the existence of an unrelated business using the same or
similar mark will constitute bad faith.
In addition to traditional trademark remedies, plaintiffs may elect
statutory damages ranging from $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name. The
bill
also establishes in rem jurisdiction which allows the trademark owner to
file an action against the domain name itself in some cases. See the
Jurisdiction module for additional information.
Another important aspect of the legislation is hidden in the legislative
history. The way the bill is currently written, the factors for
determining
bad faith can be applied by the domain name registrar. Thus, in an effort
to provide less expensive and timely legal remedies, the legislation allows
the registrar to fill the shoes of a court in determining bad faith and
exempts them from liability if they do so. If the registrar decides
against
the domain name holder, the domain name holder will have no recourse against
the registrar. Why this provision is necessary given the existence of the
UDRP is unclear. As is whether registrars will choose to engage in this
balancing.
In a small effort to prevent reverse domain name hijacking, the bill makes a
trademark owner who knowingly misrepresents a domain name to be infringing,
liable to the domain name holder for damages and attorneys fees resulting
from cancellation. A trademark holder who engages in reverse domain name
hijacking is not, however, subject to civil penalties.
Three lawsuits were filed within two weeks of the enactment of the bill.
New Zealand's America's Cup team won a temporary injunction preventing the
owners of the <americascup.com> domain from using it for a Web site.
Harvard filed suit against the registrants of a variety of domain names
incorporating the Harvard trademark including <Harvard-lawschool.com>.
The
NFL filed suit against the registrants of <NFLtoday.com>.
In the first appellate application of the new legislation, the Second
Circuit applied the ACPA to a case initially brought under the Federal
Trademark Dilution Act. The court determined that the ACPA could be used
prospectively to require transfer of a domain name that was registered in
bad faith. Damages, however, will not be available for domain names
registered prior to the enactment of the new legislation. In Sporty's Farm
v. Sportsman's Market, the Second Circuit found bad faith in a situation
where "[a] competitor X of Company Y has registered Y's trademark as a
domain name and then transferred that name to Subsidiary Z, which operates a
business wholly unrelated to Y."
If you wish, you can read the full text text of the bill. The legislation
was initially drafted as a stand-alone bill, but was later incorporated into
another piece of legislation in order to prevent a Presidential veto. Thus
to access the legislative history you must look at the legislative history
of the prior bill H.R. 3018 and not S.1908. The legislative history
is
available in the Congressional Record via the Thomas web site.
|