Toute l'actualité des noms de domaine et nouveaux gTLDs

Archives de mots clés: dispute

Le gouvernement américain planifie un putsch sur internet

Le ministère américain du commerce entend exercer un contrôle plus strict sur le système des noms de domaine (DNS) sur internet. S’il arrive à ses fins, les gouvernements pourront bloquer les nouveaux domaines, ce qui entraînera à son tour une menace de censure.

L’Icann, l’organisation qui gère le système mondial des noms de domaine, va se réunir les lundi 28 février et mardi 1er mars à Bruxelles pour ce qui pourrait être une rencontre ultra-importante.

Le GAC (l’organe-conseil au sein de l’Icann, où siègent les différentes autorités) va formuler toute une série de réflexions quant au projet d’introduire de nouvelles extensions internet (‘top level domains’). C’est surtout le ministère américain du commerce qui est demandeur de cette confrontation, puisque cette instance exige en effet un ‘veto’ vis-à-vis des nouveaux suffixes.

Si les Américains obtiennent gain de cause, ce seront les autorités nationales qui décideront bientôt quels domaines peuvent être encore ajoutés sur internet, nonobstant tous les accords conclus précédemment. Les autorités demanderaient de pouvoir enrayer à leur guise les extensions internet, par exemple si elles jugent une idée ou une personne inopportune.

Aujourd’hui, l’introduction de ce genre de veto est en totale contradiction avec l’approche ascendante (‘bottom-up’) préconisée par l’Icann dans la gestion du DNS. Si le projet devient réalité, l’on risque en d’autres mots d’évoluer d’un modèle ascendant dirigé par plusieurs parties prenantes vers un modèle descendant (‘top-down’) dominé par les autorités nationales.

“Heureusement, plusieurs voix se font entendre au sein du GAC”, déclare Hans Seeuws, un spécialiste de l’entreprise de services Sensirius, “et ce n’est pas parce que l’organe-conseil entend redéfinir les règles que l’Icann y adhérera automatiquement. L’influence des autorités américaines au sein de l’Icann a nettement diminué ces dernières années. Et c’est assurément là l’un des derniers soubresauts. La véritable question est donc de connaître le poids que représente encore le ministère américain du commerce dans l’Icann. Et si celle-ci a les reins assez solides pour s’y opposer.”

Source: DataNews

HomeAway.com Evicted in Domain Dispute

Vacation rental directory loses domain name dispute.

HomeAway.com, Inc. has lost its domain dispute for HomeAwayFromHome.com against Frank Schilling’s Name Administration. Name Administration was defended by domain attorney John Berryhill.

Name Administration bought the domain name for $1,400 in an expired domain name auction in 2005. HomeAway.com acquired the Home Away From Home trademark from another company in 2007.

The arbitration panel at National Arbitration Forum found that Name Administration had rights and legitimate interests in the generic domain name. The panel found that Name Administration’s use of the domain name as a pay-per-click web site was a bona fide use of the domain name, and also noted that HomeAway.com does not have exclusive rights to the common phrase “home away from home”:

The Panel also finds that the terms of the homeawayfromhome.com domain name are generic and of common use and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the terms on the Internet.

Hurting HomeAway.com’s case was that, although it acquired the trademark “Home Away from Home”, it has barely used the term in commerce — and has used it in its generic nature on its web site.

Source DomainNameWire.com

Paris Attacks Geo Domain Name Owners

Paris entity attacks generic domain names, including two domains that include the word “Paris”.

In a startling move, a quasi-governmental organization in Paris, France, has filed domain disputes against owners of generic domain names including the word “Paris” that have to do with internet access.

Ville de Paris filed cases against three domain names: WifiParis.com, Wifi-Paris.com, and Parvi.org.

In a 2008 dispute for the domain name VilledeParis.com, the organization described itself as “a public body established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest and not having an industrial or commercial character; in particular the Complainant is in charge of many missions of public-utilities notably in the fields of communication and information about activities available in the city of Paris.”

It appears that the organization may be behind a project called “Parvi” that will offer free Wifi in Paris.

WifiParis.com is owned by Salient Properties, which purchased Wifi.com and entered into a partnership with Domain Strategies to develop the domain name. WifiParis.com is a web site powered by Wifi.com that lists and maps hotspots in the city. Wifi-Paris.com does not resolve.

The organization appears to want the domain name Parvi.org because it is calling its wifi setup “Project Parvi”. Parvi.org appears to be a software developer’s wiki, and completely unrelated to Wifi and Paris.

source DomainNameWire.com

La responsabilité des registrars calquée sur celle des hébergeurs

L’Afnic et le registrar EuroDNS ont en partie obtenu gain de cause face à une dizaine d’entreprises qui les accusaient d’avoir permis l’enregistrement de noms de domaine parasites.

Le tribunal de grande instance de Paris a débouté, le 26 août dernier, une dizaine d’entreprises d’une partie de leur procédure à l’encontre de l’Afnic et du registrar EuroDNS pour exploitation injustifiée de leurs marques. Selon Legalis.net, les groupes 3 Suisses International, Air France, Michelin, Danone, Auchan, L’Oréal, Renault, ainsi que les sociétés France 2, France 3, France 5, Lancôme Parfums, Réseau France Outre Mer et Voyageurs du Monde avaient assigné le gestionnaire du « .fr » et le registrar en décembre 2008 pour avoir permis l’enregistrement de noms de domaine identiques ou similaires à leurs marques commerciales.

Le TGI de Paris a imposé à EuroDNS et l’Afnic de transférer l’ensemble des noms de domaines litigieux aux plaignants. Cependant, le tribunal a débouté la dizaine d’entreprises de ses demandes de dommages et intérêts (chacune demandait entre 40 000 et 300 000 euros). Le TGI considère en effet que les entreprises n’avaient pas notifié les noms de domaine litigieux à EuroDNS, ni à l’Afnic. Le tribunal a en revanche estimé qu’un office d’enregistrement est tenu « à une obligation de résultats », dès que lui est signalé l’existence d’un nom de domaine portant atteinte à un droit de propriété intellectuelle. Par cette décision, le TGI rapporche la responsabilité juridique du registrar de celle de l’hébergeur.

Source JournalDuNet.com

Johnson & Johnson wins domain name dispute

Johnson & Johnson ,the global American pharmaceutical, medical devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer submitted a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum,requesting the domain name nizoralshampoo.com to be transferred from  the respondent to the complainant .

The disputed domain name, nizoralshampoo.com,was registered by Jorgenson Group of Companies,which is also the respondent in this case .
Johnson & Johnson is known all over the world for its products.
The complainant has a registered trademark for « Nizoral » word,registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
So,it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Johnson & Johnson ‘s mark.
Moreover,it seems that the respondent,who failed to submit  a response in this proceeding,has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
« Complainant contends that Respondent has used the <nizoralshampoo.com> domain name, registered on October 5, 2001, to divert confused Internet customers from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website that resolves from the disputed domain name.  Complainant also contends that Respondent intentionally disrupts Complainant’s business by marketing and selling Complainant’s own products to these diverted Internet users. »
The complainant also added : »that Respondent gains commercially from the diversion of Internet users, as Respondent is using the disputed domain name to profit from the sale of Complainant’s products to those Internet users. »
For all the foregoing reasons ,the Panel decided the domain name nizoralshampoo.com to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant .

source DomainNews.com

SWITCH’s dispute resolution service: Expert opinions required

The dispute resolution service introduced by SWITCH can pride itself on good news to coincide with its five-year anniversary: the results achieved in 2008 show quite clearly that it is, indeed, possible to get by without the courts – but not without professional expert advice.

A look at the latest procedure statistics for 2008 shows that the majority of parties involved do not ultimately let things go as far as the courts. Twenty-five percent of all the disputes were settled amicably in the run-up to conciliation already, and eighty-eight percent were resolved with the expert’s decision. Four disputes have not yet been resolved. And, what was particularly gratifying: in 2008, as in the year before, there was not a single case in which the conciliation procedure had to be broken off without a result being achieved.

Dispute Resolution Statistics

Dispute Resolution Statistics

In addition, ever since the dispute resolution service was first set up, there have never been as many cases as in 2008 which were not settled until an expert’s decision was submitted. Eight cases were resolved in the run-up to the conciliation procedure, one case was clarified by phone and, in 19 cases (or 60 percent of the total), an expert’s decision was required. This decision generally went in favour of the applicant who had requested the transfer of the disputed domain name. In five cases, by contrast, the applicant’s request was rejected, and the holder was permitted to keep the disputed domain name.

In the majority of cases, those involved subsequently refrained from contesting the expert’s decision by taking civil action. This shows that the parties regard the expert’s decision as a clear legal yardstick.
SWITCH is taking this trend towards the need for an expert’s decision as an opportunity to revise and simplify the procedure. The revised procedure will be coming into force in the course of 2009.

auteur : Marco D’Alessandro
source Switch.ch