Domain drama

great article :)

always nice to find lawyers with a realworld sense of humour
 
Man what a great article -- he's got a great sense of humour.

Loved that "slaghouse" and FS butcher bit.
 
MaD said:
http://www.marketingweb.co.za/industry_news/471630.htm
Click to expand...

This is certainly humorous - but I'm not sure I'd rely on Hans for legal advice given this kind of analysis.

MaD said:
co.za domain space is taking a step back and
Click to expand...


So, the fact that, before these regs, a person had to go directly to court and spend, say 20k to start, have no guarantee of a resolution (either for or against them) and maybe be there for years, was a better situation than now?

Under these regs, the current process costs the current registrant nothing (unless , of course, they choose otherwise.....).

MaD said:
so would freedom of speech.. makes for interesting reading.

Telkom could supposedly now claim for example Hellkom.co.za domain name under these new regulations.. lol.
Click to expand...

This is just so incorrect - the regs quite clearly make provisions for fair use and fair comment. Now, if you regard the stuff on hellkom.co.za as not being fair, I'd say you're living in a closed world and have never received a telkom bill....

In anycase, this is about the domain names themselves, and not about the content on websites. I'm sure as soon as Greg receives a challenge under these regs, the myadsl community can quickly rally together to show that the name is fair comment - I'll be the first in that line...

But maybe you should actually read Han's article :-) Specifically:
Gripe sites, think www.hellkom.co.za, and tribute sites, think www.muhlbergrocks.com (what do you mean there isn’t one, there certainly should be!) are specifically recognised and will generally not be regarded as abusive.
Click to expand...



Have a look at http://www.doc.gov.za/Lerato/Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_Regulations.pdf (thanks dominic from http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=59262&highlight=dispute+resolution)
 
orange said:
T

In anycase, this is about the domain names themselves, and not about the content on websites. I'm sure as soon as Greg receives a challenge under these regs, the myadsl community can quickly rally together to show that the name is fair comment - I'll be the first in that line...

http://www.doc.gov.za/Lerato/Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_Regulations.pdf (thanks dominic from http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=59262&highlight=dispute+resolution)
Click to expand...

You know the Greg you are talking about is the same MaD you just quote ?
 
I agree with orange, it is better than it was before. Remember that you can still go to court and Telkom likely will if it is not decided in their favour. If you are the defendant you can also apply for public assistance.
 
I find this terribly worrying. The net is about freedom and free speech, especially for the ordinary person / little guy. You want to start a little gripe site, and now you have to have plenty $$$ because the inevitable corporate legal team will come after you, even just for the hell of it. Not nice.
 
jabulani said:
I find this terribly worrying. The net is about freedom and free speech, especially for the ordinary person / little guy. You want to start a little gripe site, and now you have to have plenty $$$ because the inevitable corporate legal team will come after you, even just for the hell of it. Not nice.
Click to expand...

Jabulani - actually - these regulations have exactly the opposite effect. Before them, the corporate lawyers would come directly after you - and you can ask MaD how much that costs.

Now the corporate lawyers will probably use the dispute resolution process before coming after you in court - and this costs you nothing (unless you want to use lawyers).

And the regulations specifically make provisions for gripe sites - let me quote from the (imho bad, but at least Hans got this right) article:

Gripe sites, think www.hellkom.co.za, and tribute sites, think www.muhlbergrocks.com (what do you mean there isn’t one, there certainly should be!) are specifically recognised and will generally not be regarded as abusive
Click to expand...

Further more - the worst that can happen to you under these regulations is the transfer of the domain name away from you - no cost orders can be made against you!
 
orange said:
Jabulani - actually - these regulations have exactly the opposite effect. Before them, the corporate lawyers would come directly after you - and you can ask MaD how much that costs.

Now the corporate lawyers will probably use the dispute resolution process before coming after you in court - and this costs you nothing (unless you want to use lawyers).

And the regulations specifically make provisions for gripe sites - let me quote from the (imho bad, but at least Hans got this right) article:



Further more - the worst that can happen to you under these regulations is the transfer of the domain name away from you - no cost orders can be made against you!
Click to expand...

Thanks for this orange - it eases my mind a bit. Shows how non-lawyers can misunderstand things!
 
I would think Hans doesn't know so much about commercial legal matters in this regard.
1. You start a hardware store and you call it Integrity. You know that there is an insurance company called Integrity (the founder had a sense of humour!), but you’ve done your homework and you’re advised that this if fine because no one will be confused. You register the domain name www.integrity.co.za, which you can do because the insurance company registered www.integritylife.co.za. The insurance company objects. It chooses which accredited provider will decide the matter. It claims that the registration was unfairly detrimental to its rights – the name has been diluted. It wins. You’re aggrieved, so you want to appeal. But the appeal fee of R24,000 counts you out.
Click to expand...
Now although correct this only applies to trademarks you do not own. In this case you actually have two legs to stand on. integrity is a dictionary word and as such can not be registered as a trademark. So on the basis of domain names can be registered on a first come first served basis. Secondly if we take a real world example. We know that there is a MacDonalds restaurant but there is also a MacDonalds transport company. Now if the transport company were to register macdonalds.co.za in their name they would be making use of their legal trademark rights and there would be nothing that MacDonalds the restaurant could do about it. If they claim the trademark was 'diluted' it would also disqualify them from using the domain as they would be committing the same infringement. Btw, macdonalds.co.za is already registered for MacDonalds the restaurant but macdonald.co.za does not appear to have anything to do with the name and so appears to be squatting and both MacDonalds the restaurant and MacDonalds transport can lay claim to it on a first come first served basis.
 
jabulani said:
Thanks for this orange - it eases my mind a bit. Shows how non-lawyers can misunderstand things!
Click to expand...
Indeed, like I just did, hehe.

Thanks orange, sometimes when I read legal things I hit a blank & see red, and reason (and obviously my reading ability) flies out the window. :)
 
Prometheus said:
I would think Hans doesn't know so much about commercial legal matters in this regard.
Click to expand...

maybe he's just trying to drum up business :rolleyes:

Prometheus said:
Now although correct this only applies to trademarks you do not own. In this <SNIP> claim to it on a first come first served basis.
Click to expand...

and don't forget that there can 42 different trademark owners in 42 different categories!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X