[bc-gnso] interesting developments in a US cybersquatting case involving private registrations

Mike O'Connor mike at haven2.com
Tue Dec 15 13:50:47 UTC 2009

here's the argument, from TransAmerica, that persuaded the judge that Moniker was acting as more that a registrar, and thus not immune from the ACPA;

> In this case, Transamerica alleges that Oversee and the Moniker Defendants, together with the ostensible registrants – the John Doe Defendants – are the de facto registrants of the domain names in question. Transamerica claims that Moniker was not merely acting as a registrant in providing registration services to the John Doe Defendants for the infringing domain names, but instead was part of a scheme to profit from the use of the infringing names. As Transamerica points out, Moniker receives a fee each time an internet user clicks on one of the links attached to the infringing domain sites; such payment establishes at least partial ownership in the domain name. (See Hearing 63, 67). Transamerica’s Amended Complaint alleges that Moniker Online provides registration services, Moniker Privacy protects the identity of the ostensible registrant, and Oversee provides the monetization service to the domain name. (See id. at 65). Together, these three Defendants are part of a scheme by which they profit from the misuse of others’ trade and service marks. (See id.). These allegations, taken as true as they must be on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, satisfy the requirement that Defendants be acting as more than registrars so as to strip them of immunity under the ACPA.

here's the link to the article;



- - - - - - - - -
phone 	651-647-6109  
fax  		866-280-2356  
web 	www.haven2.com
handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list