- Impact
- 25
Snowe Bill Threatens Domain Name Registrants with “Infringement” Enforcement That is More Expansive and Punitive Than the UDRP or Trademark Law
Full Story
Full Story


If they aren't yet, they will be..jd. said:Are the registrar's aware of this?
It's full potential of getting hijacked by her backers, the big money crowd over at cadna.org, seems more palatable to the lady.It also facilitates the restoration of trust and consumer confidence that has been eroded by the prevalence of deceptive emails and websites, which has, in part, mired the Internet from achieving its full potential.
25% of my portfolio is developed. 25% is short CCC's and the rest are generic or brandables under development.mwzd said:Those sites with real content and even a tm on the name would not stop a large corporate from coming after the name via a civil suit.
You really think thats a good idea? Whats the percentage of your domain portfolio that is developed? I have just entered the domain world last year, but have been a developer for 10 years and have developed sites since then. Even those sites are not safe under this bill, is that what you're rooting for?
Tomorrow ebay can come after your filterbay just because of the 'bay' in it and you are liable for 6 million dollars in damages. You think the signatories to the petition like Sahar Sarid, Dan Warner and Adam Dicker are not able to see the big picture?
I guess then you're safe. But "person's bona fide noncommercial use of the domain name or fair use of a mark in a website accessible under the domain name", so i assume you won't have ads.labrocca said:25% of my portfolio is developed. 25% is short CCC's and the rest are generic or brandables under development.
"such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity" - all it takes is one business or entity.labrocca said:No...it doesn't say Ebay can come after me for FilterBay. It doesn't change existing TM laws only creates wider penalties for them.
Mostly is not good enough -labrocca said:This bill is mostly for phishing and deceptive practices to gain personal information. It's not an attack on domainers.
I guess you must satisfy this for ALL your domains - tm is only valid for wipo/udrp - "extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person"labrocca said:Essentially if this bill passes I would probably be more likely to go after someone that is using my Trademarks (for which I have many) than the other way around.
edjackiel said:I signed. Don't judge the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act" by it innocuous-sounding name! This bill far more than an "anti-phishing" act. It endangers the Internet identity (their domain) of any business or organization and threatens the investment, livelihood of legitimate, generic domain name owners/developers!It has the potential to desroy creativity, creation of content, innovation, and free speech on the Internet!
Every Internet user should be concerned, it is not just about the domainers!




