Lance Armstrong wins cyber-squatting case

Discussion in 'Legal Issues' started by mjewel, Nov 2, 2005.

  1. #1
    Armstrong wins cyber-squatting case

    Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Posted: 11:46 a.m. EST (16:46 GMT)

    GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- The Lance Armstrong Foundation, a Texas-based charity set up by the American cycling champion to raise funds for cancer research, on Tuesday won the right to evict cyber-squatters from Web sites selling LIVESTRONG bracelets.

    Two rulings ordering a California-based operator to transfer three disputed domain names were handed down by a panel of arbitrators appointed by the U.N.'s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

    CSA Marketing and Chris Angeles registered the domain names , and in late 2004, offering the popular bracelets at commercial profit in "bad faith", the rulings said.

    "There is nothing, in short, to persuade the panel that the registration and use of the domain names was anything other than opportunistic and abusive conduct...," the arbitrators said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/11/01/armstrong.case.reut/index.html
     
    mjewel, Nov 2, 2005 IP
  2. loki

    loki Peon

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    what were the domain names?
     
    loki, Nov 2, 2005 IP
  3. mopacfan

    mopacfan Peon

    Messages:
    3,273
    Likes Received:
    164
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Good question...
     
    mopacfan, Nov 2, 2005 IP
  4. aeiouy

    aeiouy Peon

    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    275
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Hmm.. that seems weird and outside the boundaries of what they should be doing.

    Domain disputes should not involve the actual content of the site. That doesn't make any sense.

    I am guessing the names of the sites had to do with livestrong.... but again it is fine if they gave them the domains based on an issue with the name of the domain itself. What people were doing with the domain should be irrelevant.

    Actually I changed my mind. It does make sense to rule on content, especially in cases where someone else might have a legitimate but different use for the same name... If they are using the name to do the same thing, or rip-them off, then it goes to intent....

    So never mind.
     
    aeiouy, Nov 6, 2005 IP