question Is ICA your friend?

[capybara]

As reported by TLDInvestors.com (as a follow up to https://www.namepros.com/threads/wi...n-the-u-s-court-on-behalf-of-the-ica.1178011/), the Internet Commerce Association is acting in favor of the Booking.com's attempt to have "booking.com" trademarked.

Should the Booking.com succeed, they are going to be significantly empowered to fight anyone who also happens to have a ...booking.com domain name, like NYВооking.соm or ТоkуоВооking.соm or ТоtаlВооking.соm etc. (no affiliation with the mentioned domain names or their owners, names are masked from index, these are only for the sake of example)

Its not hard to understand why the ICA supports this – most of their members are fat cat domain investors who have some of the very best single word .com domains, and if the big business sees the opportunity for monopolizing certain industries in this, the value of such single word domains is going to rise dramatically.

However, not so much benefit to the owners of prefix+word.com or word+word.com domains and the like.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Thx ID. So going back to Don's original concern

after the convo how do you feel about ICA and them protecting other legitimate uses on a generic term such as booking? Is it like a case-by-case scenario? And even so, I'm not sure how one could come to a ruling across the board, booking could easily be broken down into multiple geos having legitimate uses with the term.

Thanks Hot!

We didn't discuss the "booking" case specifically, so I can't answer that.

 

[oldtimer]

Now, that being all said, I can appreciate that this is a difficult issue and the ICA did indeed struggle with it. For a case to get to the Supreme Court of the United States, it generally means that it is a difficult issue and that there are many perspectives on it, all of which are legitimate.

This was the first time that the ICA filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States.

How is ICA treating this multi billion dollar company,

As a .com registrant like any other

As a victim of some injustice like any other

Or as a client with unlimited financial resources that can provide a lucrative opportunity for ICA to enrich itself.

Filing a brief at the Supreme Court is neither easy nor cheap, how is ICA being compensated for all its efforts and to what extent are any financial arrangements between ICA and this company that has made ICA to decide to go out of its way to represent and defend it.

These questions can not be ignored and have to be answered here on this thread in order to show that there is Transparency in what ICA does, otherwise it might look like as if ICA has sold all domainers out for the opportunity to make some money for itself (perhaps a huge amount of money).

IMO

 

[HotKey]

If a company already has a category defining .com within a certain Industry that means that they already have a big advantage over everyone else.

I like this point.

 

[oldtimer]

I like this point.

You realize that this is not just a Trademark for a keyword that we are used to seeing usually,

ICA is going out of its way (supposedly while being compensated somehow which is not disclosed here) to advocate for a multi billion dollar company to be able to get a TM for a "generic category defining keyword + .com" which includes the .com as part of the TM and as such will be against the interest of all the other businesses and registrants who are using that generic category defining keyword as part of their .com domain.

Which as I said in couple of post earlier:

"In my opinion giving a trademark for that category defining .com will only open the door to monopolistic and predatory practices to stifle the competition."

IMO

 

[Grilled]

Should the Booking.com succeed, they are going to be significantly empowered to fight anyone who also happens to have a ...booking.com domain name, like NYВооking.соm or ТоkуоВооking.соm or ТоtаlВооking.соm etc. (no affiliation with the mentioned domain names or their owners, names are masked from index, these are only for the sake of example)

I'm curious how this impacts other dictionary terms that include *booking.com such as ScrapBooking.com



WHOIS Creation

ScrapBooking.com - November 1996

http://web.archive.org/web/19980110222150/http://scrapbooking.com:80/

Booking.com - April 1998

http://web.archive.org/web/20000917233534/http://www.booking.com/

In the above example comparing the WHOIS/Archive History of ScrapBooking.com VS Booking.com:

• ScrapBooking.com > Older than Booking.com in terms of WHOIS age
• ScrapBooking.com > Longer archive history of development dating as far back as January 1998, which is noted, before the April 1998 WHOIS creation date of Booking.com
  
  ***The first Booking.com archive.org entry is from September 2000, which yielded the above screenshot. Shortly after, my browser automatically forwarded to below GreatDomains.com URL
  

 

[jberryhill]

Or as a client with unlimited financial resources that can provide a lucrative opportunity for ICA to enrich itself.

Filing a brief at the Supreme Court is neither easy nor cheap, how is ICA being compensated for all its efforts and to what extent are any financial arrangements between ICA and this company that has made ICA to decide to go out of its way to represent and defend it.

First off, the ICA has no "clients". It is not a law firm and has no services to sell.

Secondly, it is pretty normal for organizations with an interest in an outcome in a case before the US Supreme Court to file amicus briefs (i.e. briefs NOT submitted at the behest of either party in the litigation).

In point of fact, some time ago, I had suggested to Zak that perhaps the ICA might consider whether they have a position in this, and to submit a brief. Zak found an attorney who was willing to do it at no charge to the ICA. That is also not unusual, because it allows them to get their work in front of a lot of people in their field of practice.

Beyond that initial conversation with Zak, I had no further input since I disagree with the ICA's position in this litigation. But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

 

[oldtimer]

But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

No accusations, just a few questions, I am sure that you agree that we need a little more Transparency from ICA.

Thanks for your post to clarify this situation, but ICA should make it clear as to whom they are advocating for and why.

I still believe that ICA should fight to protect the rights of all registrants and not to work to advance the agendas of the special Interest.

I also believe that decisions of this importance should be made by some kind of a board or a vote amongst high ranking members at ICA rather than be based on the judgment (and in some cases perhaps the agendas and interests) of just one person in this organization.

IMO

 

[trelgor]

First off, the ICA has no "clients". It is not a law firm and has no services to sell.

Secondly, it is pretty normal for organizations with an interest in an outcome in a case before the US Supreme Court to file amicus briefs (i.e. briefs NOT submitted at the behest of either party in the litigation).

In point of fact, some time ago, I had suggested to Zak that perhaps the ICA might consider whether they have a position in this, and to submit a brief. Zak found an attorney who was willing to do it at no charge to the ICA. That is also not unusual, because it allows them to get their work in front of a lot of people in their field of practice.

Beyond that initial conversation with Zak, I had no further input since I disagree with the ICA's position in this litigation. But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

What are your reservations or concerns?

 

[ProfitMaker]

ICA is a shill. Controlled oppposition. Posing as a domain owner friendly organisation, but totally sold out to corporate interests.

 

[Samer]

ICA is a shill. Controlled oppposition. Posing as a domain owner friendly organisation, but totally sold out to corporate interests.

feel like we’re making a breakthrough here

take your negativity elsewhere.

This is as open as i’ve ever seen them.
Special thanks to @jberryhill who went out of his way cleared up a few things.

Samer

 

[ProfitMaker]

feel like we’re making a breakthrough here

take your negativity elsewhere.

This is as open as i’ve ever seen them.
Special thanks to @jberryhill who went out of his way cleared up a few things.

Samer

You'll recognise it yourself, friend.

 

[ProfitMaker]

Being registered as a non profit in the District of Columbia.
Being registered as a non profit helps in avoid taxes and also the directors and the controllers of the association can draw fat salaries, an entity in itself is just a shell. It's the people controlling give it meaning.
If you read carefully it also serves the interests of the service providers and also advocates for their rights.
How can you be sure that they are not receiving kickbacks from big companies.
Have you seen their financials and income sources?
The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is a non-profit advocating for the rights and interests of domain name owners and related service providers.

 

[ProfitMaker]

https://www.internetcommerce.org/about-us/people/
Look their board members are from Sedo, Godaddy and other organisations.

 

[ProfitMaker]

Zak Muscovitch, General Counsel. Zak Muscovitch has practiced Internet domain name law since 1999. Zak was lead counsel in numerous precedent-setting court cases, including the Toronto.com case (2000), wherein he successfully defended against one of the first attempts in Federal Court to obtain an interlocutory injunction against a domain name registrant. Zak was defence counsel in the Sweetsuccess.com case (2001), one of the first decision to establish the convenient forum for international domain name disputes. Zak was instructing counsel for the registrant of the defendant domain name in the Technodome.com case (2002), which was the first in rem decision under the United States ACPA. Zak was counsel in one of the first court case overturning an ICANN UDRP commenced by Molson in the Canadian.biz case (2002). Zak represented the owner of CheapTickets.ca (2008), wherein he defended a descriptive domain name by successfully obtaining the cancelation of a plaintiff’s trademark for “Cheap Tickets”.

Zak has represented clients from all over the world, in countries such as China, England, Australia, the United States, Brazil, Turkey, Belgium, South Africa, Korea, and Canada, in numerous ICANN domain name disputes. Among many notable decisions, Zak represented the registrant of Shoes.Biz in the first “.biz” Reverse Domain Name Hijacking case (2002). Zak represented the registrant in the first ever successful defence of a CIRA CDRP Complaint over the domain name, Cheaptickets.ca (2003). Zak represented the registrant in the first CIRA Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding and costs order in the Forsale.ca case (2009). Zak represented the respondent in the first case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in an IDN (Chinese language) domain name dispute over 長江.com (LongRiver.com), a complaint brought by Hong Kong billionaire Le Ka Shing to the ADNDRC and then at WIPO. Zak successfully defended Groovle.com in a case brought by Google, and successfully resisted two additional attempts by Google to use the UDRP to obtain domain names in two other cases.

Zak is the author of several articles on domain name law, such as “A Guide to ICANN Procedure and Policy (2000). Zak wrote, “Taxation of Internet Commerce” (1996). It was the very first published legal treatise on the taxation of Internet commerce. Zak has served as a consultant to the Canadian Internet Registration Authority on updating and revising the Canadian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Zak is frequently consulted by the media on Internet related legal issues, including by Wired magazine.

Zak is a trademark agent practicing before the CIPO and the USPTO. Prior to his appointment as General Counsel he served on the Board of Directors of the ICA.


If you look at the ICA staff. You can see Zak is a Domain name attorney. Also practicing before CIPO and USPTO.
Can you be sure that ICA is not front for client recruitment.

Don't fall for the marketing and advertising. These shill organisations usually seem to good at masqurading themselves as sheep, while being a wolf.

 

[ProfitMaker]

This is same Pepsi or Coca-Cola trying to show themselves as a fitness company by starting an arms length organisation

 

[bmugford]

https://www.internetcommerce.org/about-us/people/
Look their board members are from Sedo, Godaddy and other organisations.

You mean the board members are people involved in the domain field. OMG!

Brad

 

[trelgor]

Being registered as a non profit in the District of Columbia.
Being registered as a non profit helps in avoid taxes and also the directors and the controllers of the association can draw fat salaries, an entity in itself is just a shell. It's the people controlling give it meaning.
If you read carefully it also serves the interests of the service providers and also advocates for their rights.
How can you be sure that they are not receiving kickbacks from big companies.
Have you seen their financials and income sources?
The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is a non-profit advocating for the rights and interests of domain name owners and related service providers.

Can we agree that innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good principle? Assumptions are of little value.

 

[ProfitMaker]

You mean the board of members are from people involved in the domain field. OMG!

Brad

You are an ICA member. Vested Interest in defending them?

 

[bmugford]

You are an ICA member. Vested Interest in defending them?

Dunning Kruger.

Brad

 

[ProfitMaker]

Dunning Kruger.

Brad

Cognitive Dissonance.