[35355] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John A. Tamplin)
Wed Mar 7 13:02:10 2001
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:57:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat@liveonthenet.com>
To: Scott Gifford <sgifford@tir.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <m38zmic533.fsf@sghome.tir.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.1010307115346.12046Y-100000@cyclone.liveonthenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 7 Mar 2001, Scott Gifford wrote:
> Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by
> "reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is
> "walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up
> criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently
> claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual
> trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site,
> and ICANN somehow agreed.
>
> I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall
> seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if
> you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up.
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were
trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain
name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By
that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine
named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be
equally successful.
John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
