New York Law To Devour Domainers

[malibumobile]

A new law in new york will make it illegal to own a domain that is similar to other businesses or person's names. This should be interesting to see how far this law can reach. Also, registrars in New York will be affected.

Read more: New York Domain Law

 

[.jd.]

Wow, horrible decison.. Might stop cyber squatters there.. but eh.. Gosh, so thankfull I moved out .

 

[Makis.TV]

and hpw can they apply this law to out of NY territory?

 

[AussieDomainer]

I can see the point of the law and would even maybe support it when used to stop blatant cybersquatting. But to fine the person $1,000 per day seems very over the top to me. Glad I don't live in New York.

 

[malibumobile]

This could be the foundation for a federal law, usually if its good enough for NY Business, it gets brought into national law shortly after.

 

[gazzip]

Damn, that'll put the cat amongst the pidgeons for some !

.

 

[Dave_Z]

Eventually approved by the same guy who UDRP'ed his namesakes:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/919828.htm

No wonder there was enthusiasm in getting this through.

 

[Peter]

To be honest how can they make this stand. It is possible for example for 2 companies in different industries to have similar names.

 

[homebuyer]

Need More Info

Can anyone post the exact language of the law, and its legal citation? No paraphrasing, please.

 

[Dave_Z]

Can anyone post the exact language of the law, and its legal citation? No paraphrasing, please.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S03814

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S03814&sh=t

Too bad the = symbol at the 2nd link isn't letter i instead.

 

[homebuyer]

Nope

The law seems unconstitutionally overbroad. It might also be preempted by federal law. I think that there is a jurisdiction issue here, too.

I would also like to see the state prove that the registrant had such a specific intent at the time of registration.

"S 148. UNLAWFUL REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAME. 1. NO PERSON OR ENTITY SHALL REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME THAT CONSISTS OF THE NAME OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON, OR A NAME SUBSTANTIALLY AND CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR THERETO, WITHOUT THAT PERSON`S OR ENTITY`S CONSENT, WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO PROFIT FROM SUCH NAME BY SELLING THE DOMAIN NAME FOR FINANCIAL GAIN TO THAT PERSON OR ANY THIRD PARTY."

Hmm. HillaryClintonShouldNeverBecomePresident.com...hmm...The domain consists of the name of another living person, and I doubt she would consent, and I want to profit financially from the name by selling it to a Republican activist group.

And how about that void for vagueness thingy. I do believe the average person would have to pretty much guess at what 17 USC 101 conduct is.

3. A PERSON OR ENTITY WHO IN GOOD FAITH REGISTERS A DOMAIN NAME CONSISTING OF THE NAME OF ANOTHER LIVING PERSON, OR A NAME SUBSTANTIALLY AND CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR THERETO, SHALL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION IF SUCH NAME IS USED IN, AFFILIATED WITH, OR RELATED TO A WORK OF AUTHORSHIP PROTECTED UNDER TITLE 17 USC, INCLUDING A WORK MADE FOR HIRE AS DEFINED IN 17 USC 101, AND IF THE PERSON OR ENTITY REGISTERING THE DOMAIN NAME IS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR LICENSEE OF THE WORK, THE PERSON OR ENTITY INTENDS TO SELL THE DOMAIN NAME IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LAWFUL EXPLOITATION OF THE WORK, AND SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT PROHIBITED BY A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE REGISTRANT AND THE NAMED PERSON.