• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Remedying Cybersquatting Via Larger Damages Claims
 

Remedying Cybersquatting Via Larger Damages Claims

on

  • 5,351 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,351
Views on SlideShare
5,292
Embed Views
59

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

7 Embeds 59

http://domaine.blogspot.com 40
http://domaine.blogspot.fr 13
http://www.slideshare.net 2
http://feeds.feedburner.com 1
http://xss.yandex.net 1
http://domaine.blogspot.in 1
http://domaine.blogspot.com.es 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Remedying Cybersquatting Via Larger Damages Claims Remedying Cybersquatting Via Larger Damages Claims Presentation Transcript

    • Remedying Cybersquatting via Larger Damages Claims ( ? ) Cédric Manara Associate Professor of Law, EDHEC Business School <www.cedricmanara.com>
    • Hit the wallet!
      • Damages in ADR procedures? [1]
      • Preventing usual squatters from registering? [2]
      • Freezing parking revenues? [3]
    • 1. Damages in ADR proceedings ?
      • Tremendous success of UDRP and like
      • But a cybersquatter does not financially suffer from a UDRP ruling
      • Costs are borne by the complainant only
    • DNS.be Terms and Conditions V4.1
      • 10.k) Costs of dispute resolution.
      • The dispute resolution fee is payable by the Complainant. However, if the Third-party Decider concludes that the domain name registration needs to be struck out or transferred, DNS BE shall repay half of these costs to the Complainant and reclaim the thus repaid part from the domain name holder.
      • Upon DNS BE's first request, the domain name holder shall reimburse the repaid amounts. The domain name holder shall not have a right of recourse against DNS BE, the Dispute Resolution Entity, the Third-party Decider or the Complainant for the thus suffered financial loss. The potential financial loss for the domain name holder is the risk that the latter took for the speculative registration of domain names on which third parties have rights.
    • Is the DNS.be solution effective?
      • Does the respondent pay?
      • Safety deposit?
    • 2. Preventing usual squatters from registering ?
      • Example of US online gambling restrictions
      • Visa and MasterCard made a policy decision not to permit the use of credit cards for opening accounts at casinos or sports books
    • Would it be possible to bar the use of squatters’ credit card?
      • A non &quot;ICANN-dependent&quot; solution
      • but a solution dependent on the registrars’ will to cooperate
      • which supposes squatters remain squatters…
      • and do not change their credit card
    • 3. Freezing parking revenues ?
    • [Source: McAfee]
    • Parking services companies
      • Limited number
      • Say they want to fight IP abuse
    •  
    • Freezing parking revenues?
      • Could parking services companies
        • delay payments?
        • escrow revenues?
    • Cooperation, the solution ?
      • Cooperation with intermediaries
      • A general trend:
        • Google AdWords blacklist
        • eBay VERO program
        • Sedo IP Complaint Policy