MySpace ruling

Several of the IPKat's friends have been telling him about the decision of a Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service appeals panel (Tony Willoughby, Claire Milne and Sallie Spilsbury), which ruled that the myspace.co.uk domain -- which was registered by Total Web Solutions before the "real" MySpace came into existence -- did not after all have to be turned over to MySpace Inc, owners of the hugely popular myspace.com.

Total Web Solutions registered myspace.co.uk as long ago as August 1997 in order to provide its clients with a cheap and easy homepage and email address (18 of its customers apparently still use @myspace.co.uk email addresses). On or before July 2004 myspace.co.uk -- which was no longer in demand for its original purpose -- was "parked" with Sedo, a company that targets advertising links on unused domains. In 2005, following the growing popularity of MySpace, the Sedo algorithm began serving Total Web Solutions' domain with advertisements for services such as "MySpace Friend Adder". The appeal panel dismissed the assertion by Total Web Solutions that the complaint should never have got to first base on the ground that the term 'myspace' was entirely descriptive of its business. However, the panel did not consider the earlier registration to be abusive. The panel added:
"To date experts and Appeal panels have reasonably consistently taken the view that if a registrant acqUires a domain name in advance of the coming into existence of the complainant's rights, the registrant is entitled in principle to hold onto the domain name and to use it, notwithstanding that confusion of the 'initial interest' variety may be inevitable. Similarly, experts and Appeal panels have concluded that in such circumstances it is not of itself abusive for the registrant to demand a high price from the complainant for transfer of the domain name in recognition of its enhanced value".
The IPKat says, if Total Web Solutions hasn't done anything wrong, the mere fact that it has gained substantially through no effort of its own isn't actionable in a court of law, surely? In good old English passing-off terms, there's nothing wrong with mere confusion -- so long as it's not deliberately induced.

Full text of the decision (16 pages) available from the Bell Dening website here
What The Register says here
MyGP here
My Cat here
MySpace ruling MySpace ruling Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, May 01, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.