Why Did One NBA Player Get 800 Domain Names From A Cybersquatter?

from the huh?.com dept

Here's an odd one. Apparently Toronto Raptors forward Chris Bosh was given control over 800 domain names related to NBA basketball players that had been cybersquatted. I'm not sure what it is with professional basketball players and domain name speculation -- as this is the second such story involving that combination -- but what struck me as odd about this is why Bosh was given all the domain names. Bosh had sued over the registration and use of chrisbosh.com -- so you could understand a ruling that gave him control over that domain name. But why give him the other 799 domain names involving other players as well? Bosh has said he'll hand over the rights to the other players for free, but it still doesn't make sense why he got control over them in the first place.

Filed Under: chris bosh, cybersquatting, domain names, domain squatting

Kentucky's Attempt To Seize Gambling Domain Names Goes To State Supreme Court

from the waste-of-kentucky-taxpayer-dollars dept

A year ago, we were surprised to hear that Kentucky's governor was trying to seize the domain names of a long list of over 100 sites that had something to do with gambling. The governor was basing this on a Kentucky law that let the government seize "devices" used for gambling, even though none of the sites in question were based in Kentucky. The governor -- who many say did this to protect local Kentucky gambling operations -- compared these website to "a virtual home invasion." While a judge originally was going to allow the seizure, the state appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that it was clear that a domain name is not a gambling device.

Rather than back down, the governor pushed ahead and is using taxpayer money to appeal the ruling. Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court is getting set to hear the case. It's difficult to see how the governor has much of a leg to stand on here. He's trying to seize the domain names of businesses operated entirely outside the state. Allowing such a seizure of domain names would set a horrendous precedent and create all sorts of problems. Hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court sees this, and Governor Steven Beshear realizes it's best to give up this dangerous crusade.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, kentucky, steven beshear, supreme court

Swedish Regulators Say The Word 'bank' Not Allowed In Any Domain Names... Except If You're A Bank

from the no-bankrate.se? dept

It's quite common for regulators around the world to insist that no company can call itself a "bank" unless it's an official, regulated bank. In fact, that's often why you see companies (including holding companies of real banks) that use the word "banc" instead of "bank." It's to get around such regulations. However, it looks like regulators in Sweden have gone a step further, telling the Swedish domain registrar, that it can't even allow any domain name to be sold with "bank" in it, unless it's sold to an official bank (found via Michael Scott). Of course, the whole thing seems ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a site might want to use the word "bank" in a domain name without being a bank themselves. A domain could be a site about banks, a service site like Bankrate or simply contain a surname like Banks -- which shouldn't confuse too many folks.

Filed Under: bank, domain names, sweden

Why Would Selling Equity In A Domain Name Deserve A Patent?

from the isn't-selling-equity-selling-equity? dept

Brad Feld, one of the increasing number of VCs who's grown skeptical of the value of patents (software patents in particular) alerts us that domain registrar GoDaddy has apparently applied for a patent on selling shares of equity in a domain name. You can see the application itself, which only has six claims and seems pretty straightforward. It's only an application, so there's still a decent chance this gets rejected -- but the very fact that anyone even thought it was worth applying for such a patent is quite telling. It's difficult to see what is new or unique about what's in the patent, other than it applies the standard process of selling equity in anything to a domain name.

Filed Under: brad feld, domain names, equity, patent, patent application
Companies: godaddy

Appeals Court Brings Back Lawsuit Over Possible Antitrust Violations Over .com Registry

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

For a long time, there have been accusations of questionable sweetheart deals by ICANN and whoever got to manage certain top level domains -- with no controversy bigger than the question of why VeriSign got to retain the .com and .net registries, and raise prices on it, without any opportunity for other providers to bid on the business (for the .com registry at least -- there was bidding on .net). There were also complaints about a secondary market for "used domains" that VeriSign was setting up. A non-profit group had sued VeriSign, saying that these were antitrust violations, but the district court had thrown out the case, saying that the group, called the Coalition for ICANN Transparency, failed to properly state its case (despite having an opportunity to amend the original filing). However, an appeals court has reversed the lower court, and will allow the lawsuit to proceed, which could mean problems for VeriSign (and potentially cheaper domain name registrations).

Filed Under: .com, antitrust, domain names, registry
Companies: icann, verisign

iPod Designer Jonathan Ive Too Private To Deserve JonathanIve.com

from the gotta-be-more-public dept

The domain name dispute process has always been a bit of a crapshoot, as it often depends on who hears the case, but it's still a bit strange to find out that famed Apple designer Jonathan Ive was told he does not have a right to a variety of domain names based on his name, including jonathan-ive.com, jonathanive.com, jony-ive.com and jonyive.com because (1) he had not trademarked his name and (2) because he's a rather "private" individual:

"[Ive and Apple] do not promote [his] name as a brand or trade mark, and therefore do not use it in trade or commerce. [Ive's] work for which he is most famous is publicly recognised and primarily attributable to Apple Inc. rather than [him]," said the ruling. "Despite having the opportunity to pursue individual endeavours outside his employment, which under certain circumstances might be branded under his personal name, [Ive] has made a conscious decision not to do so. In fact, [he] has actively sought to keep his personal name out of trade and commerce."

While I'm not necessarily a fan of simply handing over domain names to folks when others beat them to the registration, it does seem odd that the main criteria that is being used is how well known the name is in commercial settings.

Filed Under: domain names, jonathan ives, privacy

Court Of Appeals Overturns Kentucky Gambling Domain Seizure

from the good-ruling dept

Back in September, the state of Kentucky tried to seize over 100 domain names, claiming they violated a local state law against "gambling devices." None of the domains were run or hosted in the state of Kentucky, which made this quite a stretch in legal terms. While many of the domain names were for gambling websites, some were merely parked domains. The politicians who ordered the seizure were quite open that this was an attempt to "protect" local gambling interests -- but it seems like an incredible legal reach to claim that because of local protectionist laws, the state somehow has the right to seize domain names from around the world. The domain owners complained, but a local Kentucky state court ruled in favor of the government. However, an appeals court quickly told the state to hold off seizing the domains until it could review the case.

That court has now overturned the lower court ruling saying that a domain name is clearly not a gambling device, and is not covered by the law. However, this does potentially leave the door open for Kentucky politicians to change the law to include domain names... at which point we'll need to go through this whole silly legal battle all over again.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

Kentucky Appeals Court Tells Kentucky To Hold Off Seizing Domains

from the wait-just-a-second... dept

While a lower court in Kentucky had agreed to allow the state to seize 141 domain names as being "illegal gambling devices" despite having nothing to do with the state of Kentucky, other than being available on internet connections there (and everywhere else), an appeals court has now issued an injunction to stop the state from seizing the domains until the appeal can be heard. While we still have to wait for the full appeal, at least damage won't be done in the interim.

There's one other interesting note in the article, which is that Kentucky's Attorney General appears to be trying to distance himself from the case. Even though most state actions are normally taken by the AGs office, in this case, the lawsuit was filed by the state's Secretary of Justice and Public Safety (there's some question if it's legal for this person to bring the suit). Either way, the AG's name was on the case, but he's now specifically asked to have his name removed from the case. That seems like quite a statement. When even the Attorney General of the state wants nothing to do with the lawsuit, perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

EFF, ACLU Ask Court To Strike Down Kentucky's Domain Name Seizure

from the good-for-them dept

You may recall that a judge recently allowed Kentucky's governor to seize a bunch of domain names that were related to gambling -- even if neither the owners nor the servers were based in Kentucky -- setting a terrible precedent. That's why it's good to see the EFF, the ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) team up yet again to ask an appeals court to overturn this decision. Hopefully the appeals court recognizes how truly awful the original decision was, and notes how it seems to violate multiple clauses of the Constitution.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling
Companies: aclu, cdt, eff

Judge Allows Kentucky To Seize Domain Names

from the bad,-bad-news dept

Last month, we wrote about a judge allowing Kentucky's governor to seize 141 domain names that were somehow associated with gambling sites under a bizarre interpretation of Kentucky law. Pretty much everyone involved admits that this is just Kentucky's governor protecting local gambling establishments who supported him in the election. No one is even hiding the fact that this is purely about protecting the governor's political supporters from any sort of competition.

However, what's scary is in how the seizure is incredibly broad and far-reaching. None of the sites are based in Kentucky. Many of the sites are nothing more than holding pages, rather than actual online casinos. And, the law itself interprets these sites as "illegal gambling devices" which seems like a big stretch. There was some pushback, as people explained to the judge what an incredibly bad precedent this ruling would set -- as it would effectively allow any local law to be used to take possession of any website.

Apparently, the judge doesn't care. Late last week, the judge upheld the original ruling, giving one small out to the various sites. If they implement filters that block access to any IP address in Kentucky, they can keep their domain names. That's backwards. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name. This is a bad ruling by any stretch of the imagination, made even more bizarre by the judge's unilateral ruling before a hearing was even held. The whole thing sounds quite questionable, and hopefully will be dumped on appeal.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling