Class Action TM and Anti Cybersquatting against Google, Sedo, IREIT and more

[coast]

Google couldn't fend this one off - looks like the parking party might be over soon.

"The recent ruling paves the way for trademark holders to sue companies who provide advertising services, but neither own or register the offending domain name, to be held liable for trademark infringement and cybersquatting."

"The defendants are the most interesting part of the case. In a typical anti-domaining case, the defendants are the guys who own the offending domains. In this case, the plaintiffs are following the money and suing the domain parking agencies and Google. It's like taking down the crack dealer instead of the addict. The named domain parking companies are Sedo, Oversee.net, Dotster, Revenue Direct, and IREIT. And of course, you're all familiar with Google's Adsense program for Domains."

Read that list again: Sedo, Oversee.net, Dotster, Revenue Direct, IREIT, and Google's Adsense Program for Domains.

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/class-ac...gainst-google-and-domain-parkers-gets-the-gre

 

[labrocca]

Awesome! Someone needs to tell them about the other 5 major parking companies. It's time the industry accept that parking companies are complicit in their profiteering with TM domains and domain holders.

 

[jberryhill]

Indeed, someone needs to clear out all of that namespace so that the ISP's can monetize it.

 

[italiandragon]

I`m going to buy a TRUCK filled with POPCORNS :D

 

[bobdigital]

I thought back on the day, mid 90's, "Search engines" and "registrars" created a law that allowed them to profit off TMs and typos.
I am not sure what deal the parking companies struck, most were not around then.

 

[Kate]

Indeed, someone needs to clear out all of that namespace so that the ISP's can monetize it.

Yeah I wouldn't rejoice in all this
When the shit hits the fan get ready for some spattering

 

[Devil_Dog]

So yeah, why not take it a step further and sue isp's for providing internet service to the infringers.

While they're at it, find out what type of servers and hardware the infringers were using and go after them also! rolleyes

 

[jacksonm]

Next thing you know, they'll go after abstract TMs. Gotta make those quarterly revenue targets even during a recession, so litigation starts to be seen as the answer. Long live the United Suers of America.

.

 

[Pommy - The DN Doc]

Next thing you know, they'll go after abstract TMs. Gotta make those quarterly revenue targets even during a recession, so litigation starts to be seen as the answer. Long live the United Suers of America.

.

At least its not the United Sewers of America! :red:

 

[DnPresident]

Added thumbs down

There's a video floating around here somewhere in the forum with someone who runs a parking company saying that this day was coming. :td:

:td: If this happens and the whip is cracked against parking companies this will unfortunately be the straw that broke the camels back and I believe many more law suits against parking companies will follow. :td:

 

[jacksonm]

I don't know what sort of margin parking companies operate at, but if they allow millions of domains into their system then they would need a team of people just checking domain names for TMs. And the problem gets even worse when you consider multiple languages in ASCII and multiple scripts in IDN.

And if they do start checking, then I think it would be even easier to sue them in the case that they accidentally missed something. If a web hosting provider can't be held responsible for a customer's content, then IMO a parking company shouldn't be held responsible for a customer's content. The difference here, though, is that the parking company makes an active commission and controls the passing of parameters such as traffic quality which affect click pricing, instead of simply charging a flat rate fee to host parked domains.

I don't think parking will disappear, but the parking companies may be forced to change their business model and that would probably only serve to force the lower-end domainers out of parking.

.

 

[Name Trader]

Awesome!

 

[Pommy - The DN Doc]

I don't know what sort of margin parking companies operate at, but if they allow millions of domains into their system then they would need a team of people just checking domain names for TMs. And the problem gets even worse when you consider multiple languages in ASCII and multiple scripts in IDN.

And if they do start checking, then I think it would be even easier to sue them in the case that they accidentally missed something. If a web hosting provider can't be held responsible for a customer's content, then IMO a parking company shouldn't be held responsible for a customer's content. The difference here, though, is that the parking company makes an active commission and controls the passing of parameters such as traffic quality which affect click pricing, instead of simply charging a flat rate fee to host parked domains.

I don't think parking will disappear, but the parking companies may be forced to change their business model and that would probably only serve to force the lower-end domainers out of parking.

.

I think its quite right that parking companies should be responsible for TM infringement. They move the keywords around and put the ads on so they should have a look first.

I have raised this loads of times w my Sedo rep who essentially has sent me link to reassure me- the page reiterates the DN owners responsibility for TM infringements.

 

[Name Trader]

I think the ad providers are the worst culprits, followed by the parking companies, followed by the domain owners, followed by the registrars. In that order

 

[Pommy - The DN Doc]

Yes, the blame is shared, especially for domain names that look like a TM infringement in themselves. :notme:

 

[labrocca]

The parking companies are the enabler in this fiasco.

They SHOULD have tools for TM companies to have domains deleted. They SHOULD be manually approving domains. They SHOULD be adding tools to block certain ads or content. They SHOULDN'T be making revenue from TM domains and infringment and then claiming it's the domain owners problem.

Another main difference between ISPs and Parking companies is that the Parking companies actually CREATE the content while ISPs do not. I could forsee a time when Parking companies force ALL it's members to create their own pages and approve EACH ad placed..which imho would fix the problem instantly and truly place them away from blame here. Of course anything that forces domainers to do a little work to earn their money is going to cause a problem. Domainers often have lazy habits and want the most automatted parking company they can find.

Anyways...gonna be great to watch this one.

 

[Dave_Z]

I wonder what'll happen if, say, Verizon gets sued for TM infringement by yet
another mark holder like Microsoft for monetizing typos. (yeah, as if that will
happen...)

 

[jacksonm]

DOT CM anyone?

.

 

[Pommy - The DN Doc]

The parking companies are the enabler in this fiasco.

They SHOULD have tools for TM companies to have domains deleted. They SHOULD be manually approving domains. They SHOULD be adding tools to block certain ads or content. They SHOULDN'T be making revenue from TM domains and infringment and then claiming it's the domain owners problem.

Another main difference between ISPs and Parking companies is that the Parking companies actually CREATE the content while ISPs do not. I could forsee a time when Parking companies force ALL it's members to create their own pages and approve EACH ad placed..which imho would fix the problem instantly and truly place them away from blame here. Of course anything that forces domainers to do a little work to earn their money is going to cause a problem. Domainers often have lazy habits and want the most automatted parking company they can find.

Anyways...gonna be great to watch this one.

Agree with all of this.

 

[PowerUp]

It takes too much resources to manually approve or reject all the domain names. I believe domain parking companies will just call it quits, or provide a lower payout ratio so that the additional revenue will cover the costs of vetting the domains.