CooperMills

Posts Tagged ‘Cooper Mills Lawyers’

Cooper Mills Director and Domain Name Lawyer Erhan Karabardak has been appointed to auDA’s 2010 Name Policy Panel.

The Panel, will among other things, review existing auDA regulation concerning domain name eligibility. Erhan was previously a member of the 2004 Names Policy Panel.

The issue of domain name eligibility is one of the more contention issues in the .au space.

The Panel is due to hold its first meeting on September 14, 2010.

Tags: Cooper Mills Lawyers, domain law, domain lawyer, domain name law, domain name lawyer, Erhan Karabardak
Posted in Domain law and domaining, General, IT Law | No Comments »

Doctor’s Associates Inc, which operate and franchise Subway stores, is red faced after losing a domain name dispute over MySubwayRewards.com.

The recent decision is a set back for the sandwich chain as they may have lost the battle due to their lawyers failing to do their homework. The Panel held that Subway’s lawyers failed to provide enough evidence to prove that the website was confusingly similar to the SUBWAY trade marks. They provided no explanation or argument as to why the phrase “mysubwayrewards” in the domain name may be confused with the mark SUBWAY.

This seems like an easy enough thing to do right? But it appears that the lawyers got lazy and assumed that they already had the cat in the bag by identifying the name as confusing. They omitted to then take the necessary step of proving how and why.

The Panel highlighted that due to the fact that the word SUBWAY was bracketed between other words which could quite conceivably be used in combination to convey a meaning unassociated with the SUBWAY mark, it becomes necessary to sufficiently demonstrate identity or confusing similarity to the trademark at issue.

This is an example which shows why trademark and domain name owners should carefully select lawyers who understand the UDRP and auDRP processes, and who regularly undertake this type of work, like Cooper Mills Lawyers.

Tags: Cooper Mills Lawyers, domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers
Posted in Domain law and domaining, General | No Comments »

The issue of domain name wildcarding became a hot issue in 2006, after auDA deleted 19 domain names from a Registrant because they were wildcarded. This matter ended up in the Federal Court of Australia and was fought out, until the parties resolved the matter shortly before trial.

This Court battle caused auDA to develop an interim policy on wildcarding in 2007, which was to have been reviewed  but almost 3 years on and nothing has happened – so it remains an interim policy. Our enquiries of auDA revealed that they did intend to have their security and stability advisory committee (SSAC) look at the issue soon (that was in 2009) – it is interesting to note that at the time the interim policy was announced the SSAC didn’t have any members!

In order to understand wildcarding one must understand what it means. The auDA policy defines it as:

A “wildcard DNS record” is a record in a DNS file that will match all requests for non-existent domain names, so that a user who types a non-existent domain name into their browser does not get the standard “Error 404” message, but is instead redirected to another webpage.

The auDA definition is a little misleading. Firstly a wildcard record matches all requests for fourth level domains as opposed to ‘non-existent domain names‘. For example a domain coopermills.com.au exists, but if it were wildcarded then anything that was typed before coopermills.com.au with a full stop would resolve to (usually) a web page hosted at the third level domain. If an internet user was to type cars.coopermills.com.au, then it may resolve to www.coopermills.com.au. The effect of this is to in essence allow any fourth level domain, as opposed to manually creating them.

Wildcarding is commonly used by almost all parking companies such as Sedo. The rational is that it is better that an internet user is directed to content rather than an error – this enhances the internet user experience.

auDA had claimed that wildcarding caused the security issues identified in RFC 1535. The Registrant called the author of RFC 1535 Ehud Gavron to give evidence as an expert at the trial, who disagreed. During Mr Gavron’s visit (and after the matter had been resolved by the parties), Cooper Mills Lawyers hosted Mr Gavron who spoke on wildcarding of domain names in the .au context.

To download the podcast click on the link: Domain Wildcarding: The Implications for the .au Space

Tags: Cooper Mills Lawyers, domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers, domain wildcarding
Posted in Domain law and domaining, Podcasts | No Comments »

The Federal Court has issued a fine of $15.75 Million against spammers found guilty of using an elaborate scheme to deceptively obtain mobile phone numbers and spam them.

In August 2009 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (‘ACMA’) obtained default judgment against Mobilegate Ltd and Winning Bid Pty Ltd – and three individuals – Mr Simon Anthony Owen, Mr Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Mr Glenn Christopher Maughan.

The action commenced in late 2008 when the ACMA learned of the highly organised plan, where the ACMA alleges the spammers obtained mobile telephone numbers from dating websites, after posing as members of these websites. It is then alleged that:

• after the numbers were obtained, unsolicited messages were sent to the mobile phone numbers offering the opportunity to chat via SMS using services described as the ‘Safe Divert’ or ‘Maybemeet’ services;
• the chat was not offered by genuine members of dating websites but employees of Mobilegate and Winning Bid;
• consumers were charged up to five dollars per message; and
• when users questioned whether the messages were from a real person, they were told that it was a real person who was using the “Safe Divert” service to keep their mobile phone number private.

The ACMA claims that the spammers obtained more than $2 million from their scheme, which was in contravention of the Spam Act 2003.

The judgment is seen as a win for the ACMA in its fight against breaches of the Spam Act 2003, and is sure to serve as a serious warning to potential spammers.

Earlier this year the ACMA issued fines against Optus for breaches of the Spam Act 2003, as part of its campaign against spammers.

Tags: ACMA, Cooper Mills Lawyers, IT Lawyers, Spam, Spam Act 2003, Spam Lawyers, Telecommunications Lawyers
Posted in General, Spam | No Comments »