A CNN parody site gets bigfooted. "Defendant's actions constitute a textbook case of cyberpiracy under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. CNN and its marks are suffering irreparable harm as a result of Defendant's actions, and they will continue to unless and until Defendant is enjoined." Yeah, right.
posted by tranquileye
on Feb 1, 2001 -
4 comments
Verizon Wireless is jumping on the copyright lawsuit bandwagon. This time they're picking on 2600. Me thinks they're playing with fire.
posted by Mick
on May 9, 2000 -
6 comments
I don't believe it... I actually agree with something Network Solutions has done. They've apparently changed their policy to make domain name squatting more difficult. The story sounds sympathetic to the two ladies in question, but I'm not. Ok, maybe they should have been a touch more careful in how they *rolled out* the new policy, but the policy itself is about 5 years overdue.
Now, if we could just get them to *do what we tell them to*...
Cheers,
--
jra
posted by baylink
on Apr 13, 2000 -
10 comments
The
VW vs.
Virtual Works case is a lot like the eToys vs. ETOY battle. The vw.net site is owned by a small ISP that has been using it for the last few years, but VW is saying that their brand is diluted and their trademarks infringed when another company uses the initials "vw". Like the eToys case, it looks like Volkswagon has
convinced a court of this and will be taking the domain soon. If you remember the different top level domains, .org is for non-profits and organizations, .com is for commercial ventures and corporations, and .net is for network companies and network providers. One would think an ISP qualifies for a .net, and that VW should be perfectly happy with their .com domain, or am I missing something here?
posted by mathowie
on Feb 29, 2000 -
8 comments
