Petition signed. I do hope RJ decides to send out an email to his list. This is one of those times that a list can prove to be powerful. Only 622 petition signers as of this posting. We need 2,000.
This thread should have been entitled...
"New Law to Steal Your Domains Away from You!"
or
"US Senator Stealing Domains!!!"
...or something to that effect. Short and shocking. It would get this thread more views and therefore more petition signings. Effective marking is very important for threads like these and for important matters such as this.
Donate to the ICA (better yet join). They are the only association that fights specifically for the rights of domain owners. They are currently working hard to fight this bill but they need your support!
Sign the online petition at SnoweBill.com (Over 600 people have signed in the past few hours)
Raise awareness by informing others of this issue.
Most importantly, take action now before it's too late.
I've signed and left a message as to why this could destroy the livelihoods of many hard working individuals and small businesses by handing over their hard earned assets to the big TM companies.
25% of my portfolio is developed. 25% is short CCC's and the rest are generic or brandables under development.
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. And guys like Dicker are scared of anything that attacks their bread and butter (parking).
This bill is mostly for phishing and deceptive practices to gain personal information. It's not an attack on domainers. Read it before you sign whatever petition people are telling you is evil.
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.
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 destory creativity, creation of content, innovation, and free speech on the Internet!
Every Internet user should be concerned, it is not just about the domainers!
The main problem with this bill is that it seems to be written by people with no understanding of the net and trademark law. The problem with these bills is to the uninformed, they probably sound like a good idea. Especially to a guy who thinks that the internet is just a series of tubes.
Can you imagine how many places named Acorn there are in the country? Imagine if 20 of those are dry cleaners. And there is a domain AcornCleaners.com. Are they then going to start all claiming the domain under this act? Who decides under the provisions of ANY business in ANY location who has the rights to the name?
Under her system, there is no name that can be registered as long as some business somewhere is using that name or a part of that name. You couldn't even have AppleSauce.com, a recipe site that has ads, since Apple is in the name and thus would make it unlawful to have it because it contains a TM word.
The law could be easily clarified to apply to what content the domain name points to. If it's a site that is posing as another site's business, for whatever reason, phishing or otherwise, then it would be a valid law, but just to say any word that belongs to any business or person is ridiculous.
There is one other hope. Even if this law gets far enough to be passed, there is still the hope that the judicial will find it too vague and send it back. After all, how are you going to enforce that with so many like named companies. The law is also clearly against the TM law (and perhaps the Electronic Privacy Act) as well unless the 31 pages says something more than what is listed here.
By the way, is there a place to read the whole 31 pages of the bill beyond just the synopsis?
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.
"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.
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"
Also -
1. Don't ever even offer to sell a domain -
"person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the brand name or trademark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services"
2. Even if you don't now, if you ever did...
"or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct" Did i miss the statue of limitations on this somewhere in the bill?
3. Note, the onus of clearing the complaint is with the domain owner, the complainant isn't even the primary on this and of course the Transport department is a good judge of this -
"In any case in which the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency of a State, has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates this Act, the attorney general, official, or agency of the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction to--
(A) enjoin further violation of this Act by that person;
(B) enforce compliance with this Act; or
(C) obtain civil penalties or damages on behalf of the residents of the State.
I don't know maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I'd rather be safe than sorry and what anyone else tells me is less important that what it reads to me.
Very well stated!! Another example of how the gov't uses one situation as a scare tactic to pull the shades over Americas and the rest of the worlds eyes while the hidden agenda benefits the people/corporations with the most !
Please please please, do not meddle with the domaining industry as a whole because of phishing. Yes we all agree that phishers should be punished.
Yes we do not want any of our personal info in the wrong hands. But to be able to take my domains away..that I plan to develop maybe next month or next year, because it is similar to someone elses.??? And how in the world can someone come in, and trademark something I have had registered before them...then claim it as their own???!!! Absolutely not relevant to phishing, whatsoever! STOP THIS BILL NOW, AND REWRITE IT!!!
Thanks. I didn't realize when they said 31 pages, it's double spaced and so it really doesn't say much more, if anything than the above.
What bugs me is that Senator Bill Nelson is my senator. And yes, I wrote to him about the act.
Name or brand name is not the same as TM. Any company, anywhere at anytime can pick a name, and then proceed to get the domain name from you and then someone can get the name from them, etc, etc. The reason TM's were created in the first place was to avoid the very scenario that Snowe is trying to enact.
In another forum I compared this bill to the UIGEA - which was passed because it was tied to Homeland Security legislation. Who would vote against "Homeland Security"?
The Snowe bill opens up some very dangerous loopholes which could change the domain business as we know it, and is trying to pass itself off as "Anti Phishing&qu
It has the potential to destory creativity, creation of content, innovation, and free speech on the Internet! 
!