first the very brief background: i am ceo, janitor etc. of a tiny/nano,
typically broke 'metasoftwetware' startup in oakland, ca usa -- named
"zeitgeist y2k01 ltd (zy2k01)"... and have been actively attempting to
develop a number of hideously ambitious projects over the last year or
so under the "ohmweb.com label" which as a part of their presentation
and reference have attempted to 'heavily leverage' use of the DNS
namespace in producing a 'dot com pipeline'... among other things...
this all framed w/in an 'open (net app) object model' architecture (as
an 'evolution' beyond 'open source') and w/ special focus on 'city' and
other local development projects using an IPTP (independent producer to
(independent) producer) approach...
all that being as it may i did indeed register the names
'opendigitalcity2k.com' , 'digitalcity2k.com',
'opendigitalcity2k01.com', and 'digitalcity2k01.com' as part of a
somewhat larger 'cluster' in an 'innocent'/calculated attempt at
generating a 'semantic reference field' w/in but also beyond the dns
namespace for some of my projects in 'city-related' areas.
the other relevant facts can be summarized quickly:
-AOL 'owns the mark DIGITAL CITY' and the mark/name DIGITALCITY.COM and
runs some kind of banner ad/ shopping sites for 'your city' under that
'mark'...
-but the names in question (my names) are not being used AT ALL! (and
have never been used!) --- as a quick web meta search will reveal
-these names could only have come to AOL 'attention' through filtering
the entire .com root zone db... not through random WHOIS
-AOL asserts registration alone of these names as 'infringing use'
-AOL asserts that ANY domain name string w/ 'digitalcity' as a
substring, merely by registration, (and perhaps even just by thought)
infringes/'dilutes' their 'famous mark'
-(finally... and i'm sure this is well known on this list) ICANN has
selected AOL as one of its 'testbed registrars'!!
this gives the AOL doctrine: take two completely generic words (and why
not just one? 'sidewalk' 'thestreet' etc..) and trademark these... then
you get to completely clear-cut/ carpet bomb the entire global namespace
that has ANY substring intersection w/ those words... no matter what the
use or even non-use... but while doing that... out the other side of
your mouth talk about 'opening up competition' ad nauseum in your photo
op w/ esther et. al...
so as far as the WIPO dispute policies and etc. are concerned... these
appear to always be inherently one-sided against individuals or small
businesses or orgs... no matter how constructed: if deep pockets can
benefit in one of these proceedings they will use them... and if not
that's irrelevant since deep pockets will always have the option of
filing suit in a jurisdiction of choice (and as perhaps no coincidence
AOL made their preference for the non-binding nature of these
'resolution' procedures a special concern in their WIPO RFC-3
comments)...
ICANN -- so this presents an obvious test case for ICANN and its
registrar 'accreditation' policies and (non)standards --
unfortunately... if you take the time to look into these agreements you
will find as expected NO reference to the possibility of
conflict-of-interest, anti-competitive/abusive behavior etc. by
registrars, as grounds for 'dismissal' or anything else, except in one
vague clause equivalent to 'behavior detrimental to whole internet' or
something like that... but if they accept this kind of behavior from
one of their chosen 'testbed registrars' before the bed is even made
then they can certainly have NO credibility w/ any fair minded person
except as the lackeys of megacorp interests they already appear to be...
i will in any case pursue some sort of complaint w/ them on this basis,
w/out any expectation of a fair hearing, as they are the only ones w/
leverage at this point... but note that this is a special case and a
special window of opportunity, w/ the reverse domain name hijacker
having the gall to simultaneously apply to be a registrar... in the
normal deep pockets hijacking case, if you don't (in the US) have the
money to contest a Federal trademark suit then forget it...
NSI/ AOL/ etc. -- this also brings up the tip of the iceberg, and NSI is
showing many ominous signs in this direction w/ its just announced 'dot
com directory' and other moves re: its 'customer list', as far as
central registry and registrar proprietary/ predatory/ anti-competitive
or merely unfair use of 'privileged access' to various forms of domain
name registration database info for 'business intelligence' , online
analytic processing (OLAP), (il)legal harassment etc.. the point being
to emphasize the importance, for the dis-enfranchised masses, of
focusing on and forcing transparency/ open-ness/ availability for
necessarily 'public' data and the option of strong privacy, individual
control, and/or anonymity for all the rest as 'private' data
so in any case... I have received my second 'bigfoot' letter w/ a new
'deadline' for capitulation of 6.18.99... i intend to resist this
absurd and outrageous pre-emptive strike against 'net free speech',
which is also an attack on my livelihood and insulting in its arrogance
and ignorance to boot, w/ whatever combination of lame web site, emails,
discussion lists, complaining, phone calls, and pro bono/contingency
lawyer representation i can bring to bear... i won't indulge myself by
wasting the time of those on this list again but i invite anyone who's
interested in following this matter to reply by email... i'll send links
to a site or discussion list when that gets setup as i see some kind of
public 'pressure' as my only option vs. AOL's 114B US$ 'market cap'
thanks for the information and implicit support i've already received
from the other 'individuals' on this list
mark weitzel, ceo
zeitgeist y2k01 ltd.
830 28th st.
oakland, ca 94608
510.451.0352
510.451.0353 f
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Unauthorized Use of Mark DIGITAL CITY
Date:
Tue, 18 May 1999 16:02:51 -0400
From:
Jim Davis <DavisR@arentfox.com>
To:
inic@zy2k01.com
We represent America Online, Inc., with respect to its intellectual
property matters. Our client is the owner of the mark DIGITAL CITY.
Our client has made extensive use of the mark DIGITAL CITY in interstate
commerce in connection with the advertising, promotion, and sale of its
Internet and computer-related goods and services. Due to our client*s
widespread use, advertising, and extensive marketing, the mark DIGITAL
CITY has become famous and many of our client*s customers and
prospective customers recognize the mark as a distinctive symbol of our
client*s goodwill.
Our client also uses the mark DIGITALCITY.COM in connection with
providing information via computer networks. As a result, consumers
associate the mark DIGITAL CITY, when used in a domain name, with our
client*s high quality products and services.
It has come to our attention that you have registered and are using
numerous domain names that use our client*s mark DIGITAL CITY,
including, but not limited to, *opendigitalcity2k.com,*
*opendigitalcity2k01.com,* *digitalcity2k01.com,* and
*digitalcity2k.com.* Your unauthorized use of our client*s mark is
likely to confuse consumers into believing falsely that our client
endorses or is affiliated with your goods or services. Any unauthorized
commercial use of our client*s mark will also dilute the distinctive
qualities of our client*s famous mark DIGITAL CITY. Accordingly, we
must insist that you immediately stop using all domain names that use
our client*s marks, or domain names that are confusingly similar to our
client*s marks. In addition, we request that you transfer these domain
names to our client.
Federal law provides for the imposition of severe penalties against
those who commit acts of unfair competition and who make unauthorized
use of the trademarks and service marks of others. Among other things,
the courts may require a defendant to pay for all damages caused by the
infringement, all profits derived from the unauthorized use of the
plaintiff*s mark, court costs, and attorney fees. The courts also have
the authority to increase the amount of these damage awards.
We trust you will understand the serious nature of this matter;
therefore, we ask that you respond to this letter by no later than MAY
28, 1999. While we prefer to resolve this matter amicably, we will have
no alternative but to pursue all of the remedies afforded by law if we
do not hear from you promptly.
Cordially,
James R. Davis, II
cc: Douglas R. Bush
!
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/