Thanks Mikey for forwarding. Copying the RAP team for their info as well. Overall, I do not think this development is all that new. Registrars have never been able to claim ACPA immunity when they are doing more than merely registering a domain name, and thus move into the realm of 'monetizing' or 'trafficking' in domain names. One potentially interesting aspect of this ruling is that it does not allow Oversee to hide behind all of its various corporate entities, one providing privacy services, one providing monetization, etc., but instead they all appear to be lumped together, at least at this stage of the proceedings. I haven't gotten into the details of this much, but that is my first impression. Curious to hear others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:51 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] interesting developments in a US cybersquatting case involving private registrations 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 sc! heme 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; http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/14/judge-nixes-monikers-motion-to-dismiss- repercussions-for-domain-registrars/ mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)