Shame on Vancouver’s Stanley Park board of directors for trying to use a local entrepreneur’s domain name as a negotiation tactic in a license renegotiation. According to an article in the Vancouver Sun, the Stanley Park board of directors seems to be using carriage entrepreneur Gerry O’Neil’s StanleyPark.com domain name as a leverage in their negotiations. O’Neil’s carriage company calls Vancouver’s famous Stanley Park it’s home, and they offer carriage rides in the park, as they’ve done since 1985.

An excerpt from a 2005 letter sent to O’Neil asking him to relinquish his domain name reveals the underlying negotiation tactic:

“We are aware that your current licence [sp] agreement with the board expires on April 30, 2008, and that you will likely wish to negotiate a renewal term in the near future.”

To me, this looks like they are trying to tell O’Neil that they will not look favorably upon his renewal application should he not turn over the domain name to them. Not only does O’Neil have every right to his domain name, he is also an advocate for the park. In fact, in his current license renegotiation, he has indicated that he is willing to pay $200,000 towards improvements in the park over 10 years, while the park only wants a 5 year deal with $100,000 in improvements.

If the Stanley Park board of directors wants the domain name badly enough, they should pay him a fair price. Perhaps they should commit to the $200,000 in park improvements in exchange for the domain name to save O’Neil’s company a considerable amount of money. Had they had the foresight to register the domain name before O’Neil, they wouldn’t be in this predicament.

It’s a shame that another group believes they have the right to a privately held domain name owned by someone else. They are lucky that a park supporter such as O’Neil owns the domain name rather than someone else who could use it for other purposes that might not be in the park’s interest.

Special thanks to DomainReport.ca for spotting this.

The decision has been reached in the LH.com UDRP filing which pitted Future Media Architects up against airline giant Lufthansa. Unfortunately for the Respondent FMA, the domain was ordered to be transferred to Lufthansa, which seems to be a terrible decision, in my opinion. How one company can claim the rights to owning a two letter domain name is beyond me. According to AcronymFinder.com, there are 38 listed meanings for the “LH” acronym, and there are countless businesses who have LH as their initials.

This case is far from over, however, as FMA filed a preemptive lawsuit against Lufthansa in case they lost the domain name via UDRP. It will be interesting to see how this case gets resolved, but as of now, Lufthansa won the first battle for LH.com.

It’s times like these that I wish the Internet Commerce Association had more support and was able to help domain registrants fight large corporate entities. At the moment, we are like a herd of deer being chased down by a hungry lion. The individual chances of one of us getting picked off by the lion are slim in a herd of hundreds of deer, but the likelihood of one deer getting killed is great.

Friends, we need to be like the Water Buffalo in this thrilling video. While the pride of Lions (and even the hungry crocodile) are trying to kill a young water buffalo, the herd returns to save him. As domain investors, we need to put individual squabbles aside and realize that a united and active group of self-protective domain owners can help stave off large corporations. The Snowe Bill was just one thing that threatens our industry. In the months ahead, we will certainly face other obstacles, and it is important that we help each other.

We are a small industry, but we wield tremendous power. Individually, it might be difficult to take on the wealthy corporate powers who want nothing more than to take generic domain names for a song. As a united group, we can stop them. It’s time to stop looking after our individual assets alone and to unify and help protect the domain investment industry.

Domain Name Wire is reporting on two important UDRP decisions that were announced in the past two days. Shoppers.com and Ace.com were both retained by the current owners after large companies filed a complaint for each of these (clearly) generic domain names. It’s great to see good UDRP decisions go in favor of a generic domain owner.

Shame on the legal eagles who thought they could take possession of these two domain names simply because they had a mark for each of these terms. Hopefully other law firms will read up on these decisions before filing a UDRP for a generic domain name.

I was talking with a friend today about a product/treatment that has become super-popular in the US. Jokingly, I added an -ing to the end of the term, and it sounded like it could be a commonly used term. In fact, I may have heard it used before, which is why I thought of it in the first place There are close to 5,000 Google hits for the exact word that I thought I just made up. Out of curiosity, I did a Whois search, and the new term is available in the .com.

When it comes to trademarks, I stay as far away as possible from registering non-generic terms or phrases. At what point does a trademark become a common term and acceptable to use? As much as “Googling” someone is a common term, they actively protect their trademark, and I know this factors into trademark law. I am not going to register the name, but am interested in knowing what the legalities are.

As first reported by Mike and Sahar, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has voiced their opposition to the recently proposed Snowe APCPA legislation. According to their official website, the EFF is a non-profit organization that “has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.”

From what I have been reading elsewhere, not only would this proposed bill be detrimental to small businesses who own domain names, but it could also hurt the First Amendment rights of Americans who express their view on the Internet. As people continue to examine this bill and its implications, I hope they realize just how impactful this would be on anonymous free speech and domain ownership.

From ComputerWorld:

“An antiphishing bill that was introduced in the U.S. Senate last week could end up being used by large holders of trademarks to unfairly wrest legitimate domain names away from small businesses and individuals, according to a trade group that represents domain name investors and so-called direct search companies.“

Check out ComputerWorld for the entire article.

I have spent thousands of dollars developing my domain names in addition to the cost of acquiring these names, and this bill has the potential to make it easy for companies to take them from me without much trouble. I have been careful acquiring domain names that do not infringe on the marks of other companies, but in the end, I could get burned because of this legislation.  It simply isn’t fair to small-time entrepreneurs like myself.

From what I can tell, the Internet Commerce Association is our best chance at getting the bill changed. They have a great staff working to protect the rights of people in the domain industry, and we need to support them. Please consider becoming a member of the ICA or making a (tax deductible) contribution. Now is the time we need to step up and organize.

In this morning’s New York Times, there’s an article about an English travel agent who owned several Cuba-related domain names which were shut down by his registrar eNom, due to their listing on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). While owning and operating these websites on his own soil is legal, since they were being managed by eNom, a US-based domain registrar, eNom had to take possession of the domain names and essentially put the owner out of business.

While I am not going to debate the merits of this decision by the Treasury Department, I do think it is important for everyone to take a few moments and check to see where their domain registrar is located. Just a few months ago, a similar situation occurred with Internet gaming giant Bodog, whose domain names were taken and awarded to a litigant who filed suit in the US. While the situation was different then, it still shows that a US government decision or a ruling in a US court could potentially lead to losing domain names.

When doing business in another country, it is important to know that country’s laws related to your business.  Since many non-Americans who own domain names are doing business with American-based companies, it is important to know US law when it comes to domain names and online activities. If you should have any questions related to domain name law, I urge you to contact an attorney.

I am in Florida for an extended weekend and a meeting, but I wanted to post a couple of links for you to see while I am away.

From DNJournal:

“There are parties searching for a way to change laws so they can more easily take domain assets they have no right to away from their current owners. The easiest way to do that is to get language favoring their agenda slipped into an otherwise well-intentioned bill like this that would normally sail through the legislative process with little scrutiny. The dangerous language gets inserted in such a bill through lobbying efforts by people who want to remove current barriers that keep them from grabbing domains they are not entitled to. Combating this sort of legislative sleight of hand is exactly why the Internet Commerce Association was formed and why we think it is critical for domain owners to support the organization. Your very livelihood could be at stake in the legal battles over your assets that are just now getting underway.“

Also, Mike Berkens posted the ICA response to the proposed Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008. As stated above, the language in the Act could pose a very serious and very real threat to the health of the domain industry. I am not one for blowing smoke or taking political action, but this is something we should all take seriously.

Whether you have great generic domain names or average domain names it doesn’t matter. If super generic domain names become a target - as many people believe will happen if this bill is passed as is - the value of all domain names will drop significantly due to the risk of owning them. The problem I see is that this language is lumped into a consumer and election-friendly bill that will surely be passed. Who doesn’t want to stop phishing? HOWEVER, we need to make sure this bill is changed before it is passed. We need to protect our assets. If some of the big chips fall, you better believe this will impact your business (assuming you own domain names).

I am a Professional Member of the ICA and I will continue to give what I can. I am still selling my two Australian beach domain names with the $5,000 margin going entirely to the ICA from the buyer (who can get a deduction for it). No matter whether you can contribute $100 or $25,000, you need to join the ICA and help protect your domain ownership rights.

Thank you to Larry Fischer at DirectNavigation.com for analyzing and posting a link to this CNET article about the proposed new Anti-Phishing legislation. Essentially the CNET article discusses the reasons why this legislation is redundant and unnecessary. It doesn’t touch on the fact that the language in the bill could be detrimental to generic domain owners and could subject them to harsh penalties.

As I said yesterday, the Internet Commerce Association is working on a response to this. As far as I am aware, they are the only group working on behalf of the domain investment community. At first glance, the bill looks like it will be helpful to consumers, but upon close review, the language could and probably will hurt the domain industry. We could be in serious trouble if the bill passes as is.

There is time to make a difference, and I am sure the ICA will lobby hard to amend the bill to eliminate some of the gray area that exists and could hurt us. I don’t like to promote a cause on my blog or use this as a soapbox, but I strongly urge you to join the ICA. Although most of the “big guys” are helping to support them, they need the support of everyone. I joined as a Professional Member and intend to give as much as I can afford.
Domain owners own almost priceless virtual assets. I think this bill could lead to outsiders coming in and threatening (or taking) legal action to secure our valuable assets. If this threat becomes real, which will probably happen if the bill passes as is, our assets could become liabilities, and the values of domain names could go down. We need someone to take the side of domain owners and domain investors, and the ICA is the best organized group to do it.

I just read Mike Berken’s blog post about the proposed Anti-Phishing Bill I blogged about earlier this morning, which upon full review, goes much deeper than simply fighting phishers. Mike goes into much further depth and really sounds the alarm regarding the proposed legislation.

If you are invested in the domain industry, I would advise reading Mike’s Blog today. Those invested in domain names domain industry need to stand united to ensure that the bill (as currently written) isn’t passed into law without modification. I know the ICA is working on a response to this, and I think supporting them is important.