Abraham says the bill penalizes offering a name for sale to a company of
the same name, (which he terms 'extortion'), " ... misdirecting Internet
users to inappropriate sites, or attempting to damage a trademark." The
actual text of the bill modifies the Trademark Act of 1946 by extending
that act's penalties to 'willful dilution of famous marks or trade on the
owner's reputation.' See: http://www.senate.gov/-abraham/cybersqt.html
Under this bill, if even one consumer is confused by a domain name -- or
URL -- the act could be punished. The act of registering a domain name
containing a trademark would become a crime in and of itself.
It seems pretty clear 1) that the bill criminalizes speech that is
protected under the first amendment in a broader attempt to intercept forms
of 'extortion' that the author couldn't define, and 2) that it replaces
restrictions of the Crazy Horse variety that have already been thrown out
by the Supreme Court. (Isn't extortion already a crime? If not,
trademark infringement as unfair competition is already a tort in US state
law, while trademark infringement itself is protected by federal law.)
Hopefully there will be hearings on the bill to define the exact nature of
the menace Abraham wants to expunge from the Net.)
In his rationale for the bill, Abraham seems more focussed on wiping out
on-line pornography, citing the example of Gateway computers, which
allegedly paid $100,000 to a cybersquatter who had placed ponographic
images on a website with the identifier "www.gateway20000".
Unfortunately, the bill has big name sponsors: Torricelli, Hatch, and
McCain. Perhaps the election will create an opportunity to rename this
the "Public Assistance for Corporations in Fear of Trademark Dilution"
Bill. There is another bill in Congress right now "The Clarityn Bill" that
would restrict pharmaceutical company competition in order to protect
Clarityn's lock on the antihistamine market. Aside from the parallel
attempt to make Congress the source of corporate welfare, isn't it doubly
ironic that I might to jail for what I just wrote about Clarityn if
Abraham's bill becomes law?
I've read quite a few writers who have postulated that libel law is dead in cyberspace. Isn't this
a whole new incarnation of the same thing -- just for businesses?
>Dennis
-- 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/