Determining Whether United Kingdom Domain Names and Trademark Laws Provide Adequate Internet Security

Executive Summary

The study sought to provide an assessment of the adequacy of the United Kingdom domain name and trademark laws in resolving internet domain name disputes by comparing them to those in the United States. The similarities and the differences between the two countries approaches to domain name dispute resolution are compared. In addition to this, the three main domain name disputes of cybersquatting, propaganda spreading using a similar domain name and typo-squatting are reviewed based on the domain name resolution steps highlighted in the Trade Mark Law of 1994. In terms of the research methodology. A secondary design is favoured with a descriptive approach. This allows a deductive study that answers the research questions based on secondary information available. A qualitative assessment is opted because the investigation reviewed dispute resolution. A case study of the United States and the United Kingdom is used. A comparison is conducted to determine the similarities and differences. The definition of trademarks, is almost the same in the two countries. With the steps of trademark ascertaining, economic impact and confusion of the public considered as the main causes of trademark infringement. The main difference arises from the legal structure of the two countries. In the United States, the legal structure is not rigid and, as a result, there are two approaches used by the courts. However, the United Kingdom has a legal structure based on laws which reduce any major differences in the resolution if disputes. Another difference is the fact that the domain name laws in the United States favour large organizations that can prove the name is a trademark. In the United Kingdom, only when the defendant has similar products and services is the domain name considered a trademark infringement. The conclusion is that dispute the United States having more domain name disputes, the United Kingdom has a more solid domain name resolution practice that does not have a bias in favour of large organizations. The main recommendation is embracing online domain name resolution to make the process simpler.

 

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

All over the world, the popularity of domain names is something that has been recorded in academic and professional papers. A domain name is defined as the name that is given to an Internet address in a simple and easy to memorise phrase. In truth, internet addresses are given by a series of numbers and dots. An example is 255.124.128.9. This is the actual form of an internet address. However, this is difficult to memorise for most people, and a domain name is used to provide a simple internet address[1]. The domain name is the name used in place of the series of numbers to make an Internet address easier to locate.

Another important aspect of the Internet is the growth of commercialization. There are many companies all over the world that are either purely e-commerce business or use the internet in specific tasks like marketing and public relations. All these organizations have email addresses. As highlighted above, an internet address that is made up of a number series is very hard to recall. For this reason, most companies opt to use domain names that are already recognized by customers. The interaction of cyberspace and commerce has made the Internet an important part of business. Numerous scholars have highlighted how companies are using the Internet to build brands as well as to globalise their business. Domain names are central to this because the names provide a brand that the customers can attach to a company’s products. Domain names are the equivalent of brands in cyberspace. The economic value that is attached to domain names creates a problem when it comes to regulation. Domain names are not owned by anyone, and a person can choose to use any name for their internet business. However, domain names have an economic value. Some domain names can be attached to the name of the business, and this attaches the brand name to the domain name. In truth, all domains possess a trademark that is attached to the name. However, the degree of how famous the name determines whether a court of law recognizes the trademark. In a cyber perspective, a domain name is so valuable that it can overcome the main limitation of websites. This is the placement in search engines that normally reduce the visibility of the website to internet users[2]. However, when the domain name is famous most users directly search the name or the exact address for ease of access. This is true for companies like Amazon, Walmart, Google and Yahoo.

1.2 Statement of the problem

There are certain cases where an individual acquires a domain name that can be used by another company. There are several laws in place that seek to determine whether the domain name belongs to the company with the trademark or whether the trademark is not adequate to warrant ownership of the domain name. There are three main cases that arise from domain names and trademark. First is cyber-squatting. This is where an individual acquires a domain name to extort money from the business that seeks to maintain the trademark. The second type of issue is the use of similar domain names with a slight difference such as .net instead of .com and using the domain name to spread negative propaganda against the company. This is very common, especially when activists launch attacks on an organization. The third type of issue is typo-squatting. This is where people register domain names with a typing error to attract unwilling customers and steal from them. The three main issues make up the bulk of domain name and registration cases[3]. The United Kingdom has a multitude of such cases each year. Internationally, there is no clear way of solving domain name disputes. Each country has set up its specific internet laws. The United Kingdom and the United States are two of the largest countries when it comes to internet usage. The issue of domain name disputes is something that has been deliberated using different approaches in the two countries. The only way to determine the effectiveness of the United Kingdom domain name and trademark dispute is by comparing it with another country. In this case, comparison with the United States is necessary.

1.3 Aims and Objectives of the study

The main aim of the study is to determine the strengths and the weaknesses of the domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom by comparing it with the laws in the United States. More specific research objectives are given below:

1. To determine the similarity between the domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States
2. To determine the differences between domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States

• To determine the most effective way of dealing with cybersquatting, domain name propaganda and typo-squatting in the United Kingdom

The research objectives provide the main motivations for the dissertation. These objectives are then converted to research questions to improve the effectiveness of answering them. The specific research questions are given below:

1. What are the similarities between the domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States?
2. What are the differences between domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States?

• What are the most effective ways of dealing with cybersquatting, domain name propaganda and typo-squatting in the United Kingdom?

1.4 Rationale of the study

The research topic is important because domain name disputes in the United Kingdom are increasing each year. The increase indicates the growing need for better methods of resolving internet domain and trademark disputes. This is further compounded by people who intentionally acquire certain domain names to try and sell it to the businesses at a later date. This is an important study because it allows the government to compare the existing laws with the laws of other countries. This allows weaknesses and strengths to be revealed. The United Kingdom will be able to understand compare and contrast the domain names and trademark laws with those in the United States. In addition to this, the subject of domain names is a new subject, and academic literature has not exhausted every issue of international law. In addition to this, most academic papers concentrate on the United States with very few dealing with European trademark laws[4]. A study that compares the domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom to the United States provide an opportunity to deliberate the effectiveness of the laws in the United Kingdom.

1.5 Scope of the study

The study seeks to determine the domain name and trademark laws that are used in the United Kingdom as well as the United States. The study reviews the internet regulations in the United Kingdom and the regulations in the United States to allow a comparison and a review of the existing internet laws. The strengths of each of the laws are determined as well as the weaknesses. All this is done with the aim of ensuring that the effectiveness of the United Kingdom laws is measured.

1.6 Overview of the dissertation

The dissertation’s first section is the introduction that provides a background of domain names and trademarks. A brief explanation of domain names and the economic value is provided in the background. The problem of cyber-squatting, typo-squatting, and propaganda from similar sites are highlighted in the main cases. The aims and objectives provide the research objectives and questions that are to be answered in the study. The second section is the literature review section where a better definition of domain names, trademarks and economic value is provided. The third segment of the dissertation is the research methodology that provides the research methods used in the dissertation to answer the research questions. The data collected is presented in the fourth segment of the dissertation in the data analysis section as well as a discussion of the results in reference to the research question. The final chapter provides a conclusion based on the objectives as well as recommendations for changes that need to be made to the United Kingdom domain name and trademark regulations.

 

 

 

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Chapter Introduction

The literature review chapter provides an overview of what makes up Internet domains, trademarks and the different risks that arise from unscrupulous individuals on the Internet. This is done in detail with references to legislations in the United Kingdom. An overview of the greatest risks to domain name registration and trademarks is provided.

2.2 Domain names

Numerous scholars have highlighted the growth in internet use all over the world. There is an abundance of interactivity and multimedia applications that make the Internet one of the best advertising and marketing platforms. This is a shift from the traditional advertising techniques that are based on the creation of adverts that target a passive audience. However, the Internet offers an active audience where the users can call up information that they require. All companies that seek to capture a global market or increase the reach use the Internet[5]. The best way to do this is by making the company information, product or brand available on the internet. This is done by creating a webpage that can be accessed by the users when they seek information on a certain product or range of products. As highlighted in the introduction, all websites are essentially made up of a series of numbers. These numbers are difficult to memorize, and domain names are used instead to offer better access to information[6]. The best domain name for a company is one that has the company brand, trademark or designation. This allows the users to easily identify the company when making searches.

Before the internet, it was possible for many companies to use the same name and the same brand because they were either in different countries, different regions or they were in different industries. This made the brands and trademarks easy to differentiate. However, the Internet changes everything by making the entire world one global village. And due to this, no domain name can be used by two different companies, entities or individuals. In many cases, when an organization seeks to register their brand name or trademark in an internet domain they are informed that the domain has already been acquired by another company or individual[7]. This is a very common phenomenon. A study in Germany revealed that Rolls Royce, Toyota, and Apple are all unable to get domain names based on their trademarks. The .de versions of their domain names have all been acquired by other individuals or companies. In America, the ‘Candyland’ trademark that is popularly associated with Hasbro Company is being used by a pornographic website. This clear indication of the conflict that arises when companies that were in different sectors or regions conflict with others in cyberspace. The question then raised about whether internet domains should be based on a first come, first serve basis or whether they should be deliberated on whether the trademark of the company needs to be used to provide domain names.

Currently, there are seven specific generic top-level domain names in the world. The first is the .gov that are specifically used by government agencies. Another top level domain is .mil which is only used by military agencies. International organizations that have been established by international treaties such as the World Bank and the IMF can occupy the .int domain names. These are the main top level domains. The other domain names are .com that is used for commercial purposes, the .edu that is used for institutions of education, the .net that is reserved for network providers and finally the .org that is used for organizations. Most of these domains are available all over the world. However, there are country specific domains like .uk for the United Kingdom, .de in Germany and .fr in France. The main problem that arises from domain names is that there will always be disputes that are caused by different people and entities who wish to use the same domain names[8]. In cases where a domain name has been taken by another entity or organization, there is always an issue that has to be resolved.

2.3 Trademarks

The best way to understand the importance of domain names is by understanding the connection between domain names and trademarks. A trademark is any unique sign, word or combination of words and phrases that can be used to identify a business or products of a business. In a conventional business, the combination of different signs, names, and colours is used to identify the business[9]. Even the layout of the retail outlet or supermarket is something that is an established trademark. However, the trademarks on the Internet can only be designated by the name.

The problem arises when businesses with the same name but different trademarks compete for the domain name. This is a complicated situation because, in the real world, most business names or trademarks are used by other businesses to create a different trademark. The differences that existed due to the location or the industry are no longer able to differentiate businesses[10]. This is the most common dispute that exists on the Internet.

The problem is compounded when you consider the economic value that a trademark offers to a business or an individual. Most people identify the products and services offers by a business by the trademark or brand that the company has. This allows companies to introduce new products that the customers can recognize due to the trademark. This provides an economic value to trademarks that cannot be ignored. When it comes to the cyber world, internet domains are the only trademarks that can be associated with a company[11]. This means that the other measures of brand and region products are no longer as important as the name of the organization. This is why domain names are so important for businesses. When it comes to trademarks and domain names, an organization has two options, either to fight for the domain name or to choose another domain name. There are some domain name cases that are popular[12].

One of these cases is the candyland.com domain name dispute between an adult entertainment site and Hasbro. The adult entertainment site obtained the domain name before Hasbro, but Hasbro sued the site for using their trademark. The dispute was settled with Hasbro acquiring the domain name. Another interesting domain name dispute is the mcdonalds.com dispute. The domain name was acquired by one of the authors in Wired Magazine. Legitimately, the author had a right to the name, regardless of the trademark that McDonalds Company had. The case was settled out of court with the company paying a large amount of money. Another popular case is the case where the domain name micros0ft.com was acquired by Zero Micro Software. This is very close to the Microsoft.com domain name. Microsoft launched a complaint, but Zero Micro Software abandoned the domain name[13]. These are all examples of the different issues that exist in domain names.

2.4 Domain name issues

2.4.1 Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting refers to the registration of a domain name that has someone else’s trademark with the aim of making a profit. There are two ways that people can make money through cybersquatting. The first is by using the domain name to make sales of the company’s product at a commission without informing the trademark owner. However, the most common reason for cybersquatting is to sell the domain name back to the trademark owner[14]. However, the main issue is that the cybersquatter does not have a legitimate trademark that can be used to hold the domain name. Cybersquatting is known as domain grabbing, domain piracy or domain warehousing. At the moment, it is the most common type of infringement on the internet. As the name suggests, cybersquatting is done without the permission of the trademark owner and the cyber squatters seek only to make a profit from the organization in question[15]. Cybersquatting takes advantage of the economic value of trademarks and the ease of access that arises from the use of the trademarks. In most cases, the resolution of such cases involves arbitration that is dependent on the laws of the country in question.

Cybersquatting was especially rampant in the 1990s. At the time, the internet had not gained economic value and was only viewed as a source of information. Most major companies did not register domain names because it was only an added expense to the business. However, the economic value of the Internet became more evident from 2000. This led to many businesses seeking to take advantage of online marketing and public relations. However, most of the businesses went online to find that their trademark names had been used by other businesses or organizations. This led to a large number of cases as the companies sought to obtain the domain names. All this arises from the inability of Network Solutions Inc. not being able to determine the best people to provide domain names[16]. The three main requirements to obtain a domain name are ensuring that the domain name does not contravene the intellectual property, trademarks or service marks of other organizations, ensuring that all documents provided in the domain authentication process are legitimate and not using the domain names unlawfully. However, the number of available domain names and the limitation to whether a person can get a domain name presents a problem that most people cannot deliberate. Cybersquatting remains as the most common crime involving internet domains all over the world. The result is that there are numerous cases and arbitrations due to cybersquatting. The increase in cybersquatting cases indicates that there is more conflict on the internet as the domain names slowly reduce.

2.4.2 Internet domain name propaganda

The second most frequent problem that occurs on the internet is spread of internet propaganda using the trademark of the target organization. This is very common when it comes to activists or corporate espionage. A simple example is an organization that sells a specific product. The company has a domain name that is registered under the .com range of domains. However, a person who has malicious intent will register the same trademark, but under the .net or any other domain name. After this, the malicious individuals posts negative information about the product or the company[17]. This is the most common method of corporate espionage by hackers and computer savvy individuals who wish to cause harm to an organization.

There are some important considerations that have to be made to understand the role that propaganda plays online. In cyberspace, the only trademark that exists is the name of the organization. This means that many different people can only relate to a company online using the name. When someone uses an alternative domain name with a slight variation, many people who wish to visit, the website will get diverted[18]. One the people are diverted they get a negative view of the company, and the brand image is affected. This has become the most common form of corporate espionage, especially from hackers who wish to damage the credibility of an organization. In some cases, the hackers take up forex options that the stock will drop before starting negative propaganda[19].

2.4.3 Typosquatting

Typo-squatting involves the acquisition of a domain name that has a different type of name from that of the company with a trademark. The motivation behind typo-squatting is that the individual seeks to use the trademark of the initial organization in increasing sales of gaining an economic advantage over unsuspecting people. Most people are not keen on the exact website when they are browsing on the Internet. In most cases, individuals only seek to collect information that is based on the deliberation of information[20]. Typosquatting is a type of information analysis that deliberates the processing and the collection of information.

2.5 Dispute resolution on Internet domain name issues

All over the world, the concept of domain names and trademarks has been intensively discussed. Any trademark distinguishes between services and goods offered by one company to those offered by another organization. The emergence of the Internet as a tool for commercial use has led to the emergence of the need for companies to identify themselves in an organization[21]. One of the most important things is the adoption of more strict methods resolving the numerous disputes. The number of disputes in the Internet continued to increase with cyber-squatting, typo-squatting and reverse domain name hijacking becoming more prevalent. Cyber-squatting, in particular, has been the top issue of internet domain name registration since the 1990s. In some cases, the situation is simple cyber-squatting while in other cases it is a problem of two companies using the same trademark[22]. This complicated issue has led to the creation if different cases.

In 1999, the WIPO Arbitration and Medication Centre created the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) The Centre started offering services that sought to provide a clear cut arbitration process that can be used by different organizations, countries or regions as a platform for their arbitration. As of 2012, The UDRP was responsible for resolving the largest number of internet domain name disputes.

Since the adoption of the UDRP, the process of arbitration is applicable globally with trademark owners having the framework to conduct private arbitration processes to challenge and acquire domain names based on trademarks at a low cost. The UDRP is the framework that is used in the creation of conflict resolution strategies. An important consideration is that most of the internet domain name companies and service providers are in the United States[23]. This gives the United States a slight advantage over other organizations when it comes to dispute resolution processes. However, the disputes are more complicated in the United States as opposed to other countries.

2.6 Online dispute resolution

One of the most important considerations in the domain name registration measures that have been set by different governments all over the world. Since the Internet makes the world a global village, domain name disputes are not limited to one country or one region. This means that disputes are spread all over the world with different individuals having to deal with different domain name issues[24]. This makes normal methods of domain name dispute resolution difficult due to the added cost of transportation and accommodation to arrive at one arbitration point. The problem has led to the emergence of online domain name dispute arbitration. This involves the resolution of domain name disputes from specific parts of the globe. This is an important method of domain name resolution because the number of people involved in domain name resolution has been reduced considerably as well as the cost of domain name dispute resolution[25].

3.0 Research Methodology

3.1 Research Approach

A study should be inspected utilizing three primary methodological approaches. The first methodology is an exploratory study. This is a study that looks to focus the basic component or phenomenon that has not been evaluated by any other study. This includes the making of models and hypotheses that will be utilized as a part of future studies[26]. This is a confounded approach and is ordinarily utilized as a part of peer-reviewed survey articles instead of university dissertations. The second methodological approach that can be utilized is a descriptive examination. This is the least muddled, and it can depend on secondary investigation (Bocarnea, et al., 2013). At last, a study can utilize an explanatory methodology approach where circumstances and end results connections are resolved in a study. The proposed examination will be investigated from a descriptive methodology.

Another vital thought is the kind of information that ought to be utilized as a part of the study. An examination study can either utilize secondary or primary approach in the research. Secondary information analysis includes the social event of data that has been gathered by others[27]. Then again, essential information includes the gathering of information that has beforehand not been gathered by others. A primary study permits the examination inquiries to be answered with more specific information based on the study. Nevertheless, the information gathering and examination procedure are difficult as well as utilize a lot of time and money[28]. Notwithstanding, there are various limitations on the sample size needed and the strategy to be utilized in the collection. Much of the time, the research can be wrong because of not using the best possible techniques or mistaken information accumulation. One the other hand, secondary information gathering is simpler yet the information gathered is then not particular to a certain study. This may prompt a few insufficiencies of the outcomes on account of the choice of the wrong information. There is a high risk of propagation of slips from past studies[29]. The research investigates various aspects of the justice department, and this information cannot be acquired from a primary study. Therefore, a secondary study is preferred over the primary study.

The examination approach in any study can either be inductive or deductive in nature. Regarding exploration approaches, a deductive examination methodology is a sort of exploration methodology where an examiner just looks to answer the exploration questions (Kirkup, 2012). Conversely, an inductive methodology is an examination approach where the examiner tries to define a theory grounded on the aftereffects of the information that is obtained. An inductive report is a muddled report, and it obliges a fitting assessment with other existing speculations to prompt the formation of a reasonable hypothesis or model[30]. Nonetheless, the study is an examination paper, and the deductive methodology is utilized.

Secondary information examination should be possible in two principal ways, the first is through qualitative exploration or quantitative examination. Quantitative exploration includes the examination of data utilizing numerical statistical strategies. This includes gathering secondary information and performing statistical examination utilizing software packages. This is objective over that obliges answering of study research questions. The primary disservice of quantitative information examination is that it is constrained to straightforward and direct studies. Any incorporation of a human component decreases the adequacy[31]. Notwithstanding this, such studies oblige an expansive example, and this makes it costly to embrace. Then again, a study can utilize qualitative exploration, this includes examining information in an unstructured way to get subjective conclusions. This sort of information has two primary detriments. The principal issue is that it cannot be dissected exactly, and subsequently information investigation is unattractive and obliges a considerable measure of understanding. The second drawback is that it is arduous in nature on the grounds that it obliges examination of each reaction (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). This additionally confines the capacity to be utilized as a part of vast studies. Dissimilar to quantitative exploration, the qualitative examination is subjective in nature and is the best for picking up understanding a certain subject. It additionally takes less time to finish in the optional examination, and it diminishes the danger of propagation of errors because of the investigation of information that may have been redressed with blemishes[32]. A qualitative examination can likewise give a more extensive review instead of a quantitative exploration.

Qualitative analysis can be of several different types. The main type of qualitative information analysis that can be conducted in a secondary study is a simple academic study. An academic study involves the collection of information from academic sources as opposed to non-academic sources. Academic sources are restricted to academic papers or textbooks. This type of information is more complicated that the normal secondary study data collection. The alternative involves conducting a case study analysis[33]. A case study analysis involves the collection and presentation of information on a specific case study. A case study not only uses academic literature, it also uses other sources of information such as websites, court cases, and newspaper journals. This is an important type of study because the information collected is fine-tuned to achieve a specific purpose. The approach used in the study is a case study analysis where Internet domain laws and approaches to try cases in the United Kingdom and America are assessed[34]. A comparison is also provided to give the best type of information. This approach will provide the best comparison to determine the best way to answer all the research questions in the organization.

4.0 Data Analysis

4.1 Findings and results

4.1.1 The United States Approach to Domain name conflict resolution

Most of the early developments that have been made on the internet can be attributed to the United States. This gives a de facto leadership in matters to do with the Internet. As a result, the majority of the internet domains are provided by companies in The United States with the rest being shared by other European countries. As a result, the majority of the internet domain name disputes originate from the United States. Courts in the United States have been struggling with domain name cases. The main problem arises from the difference that arises from how domain name and trademark laws have to be deliberated[35]. Two policy approaches are used in the protection of internet domain laws. The first is the prevention of any confusion in the public when it comes to trademarks. The second main aim of trademarks is to protect the investment of the owner in the domain name. One of the most important things to note is that the trademark system in the United States is the most commonly used law. The combination of common laws at the state level and federal law at interstate level provides a formula that can easily be applied in a global reach. A breakdown of the various different components of Internet domain legislations is important to provide a clear picture of internet trademark laws[36].

Trademarks

The most important part of the study is how trademarks are dealt with in the United States. The issues of trademarks in the United States is legally enshrined in the Lanham Act. Section 32 of the Lanham Act highlights that people are allowed to register trademarks. Trademark infringement occurs when someone uses another person’s trademark and applies the trademark for his or her goods and services despite belonging owned by someone else (Mobile Reference, 2007, p. 154). Additionally, any commercial gain or loss by anyone other than the trademark owner is an infringement of the trademark.

The process of upholding the regulations in the organization include proof that any use of the internet domain having the trademark of another organization causes confusion regarding any origin of goods and services. The proof of ownership and economic loss are important in the deliberation of any trademark cases. This is also evident in the domain name conflict resolution. The use of a specific domain name should not go against another organization or lead to confusion on the products and services offered by an organization[37].

When dealing with trademark issues, the likelihood of confusion is always considered as the main case in an organization. This is always the basis of any trademark infringement cases. The same case is practiced in cyberspace to determine the domain name infringement on the trademark of an organization. Courts in the United States always look for circumstances or factors that may determine whether there is any confusion that is caused by one entity owning the domain name that contains the trademark of another organization. However, one of the most important considerations is that all the cases that deal with the trademark infringement are based on goods or services that are the same in nature[38]. Therefore, the idea of confusion to potential customers is only used for the resolution of domain name issues for companies that are in the same industry. The simplest explanation is that domain names that confuse the public that products are from one specific source rather than from another organization within the same industry is when trademark issues in domain names can be applied. The bottom line in the trademark infringement is that if there is no relationship between the goods and services, the public will not be confused by the trademark[39]. This is one of the reasons why numerous cases involving large organizations that seek arbitration are lost is in the case that someone uses the domain name in a completely different industry.

The United States courts have come up with various different ways to determine whether the interest in an organization is enough to cause any significant change in the public perceptions. The traditional likelihood test that is highlighted has several loopholes that may lead to bias in dealing with court cases. The first consideration of looking at the relationship between an individual’s first diversions from the original purpose of entering the website is used in determining whether the trademark is being used unlawfully. The goodwill that a person has towards a certain brand or trademark is affected by the trademark used in the organization[40]. The use of another trademark to gain goodwill is considered illegal regardless of whether it is in the real world or cyberspace.

Another important consideration is the confusion that arises from functional TLDs causing confusion to the public when it comes to trademarks. This is an issue that has split the US court system. The Avery Dennison Court is an example of a court that believes that the .net and .com domain names are distinct, and there can be no confusion between the two organizations. This approach means that organizations that have people using their trademarks under and different TLD are unable to stop the unlawful use of the domain name. However, only a minority of the courts agree that there is sufficient differentiation between TLDs. The rest of the courts approach conflict resolution of this nature by looking at the effect of the trademark as opposed to simply assuming that the domain names are differentiated by the TLD in which they are registered[41]. This is an important consideration because it allows the adoption of different statutory measures in the control and analysis of experiments.

The United States also considers unfair competition to be a major factor when dealing with trademark regulations. In the first place, any trademarks used may give an organization an unfair competition against others. An example is a company that uses a well-known trademark to attract customer to the internet domain. If this trademark offers an unfair advantage, then the trademark can be assumed to be negative to the organization’s development. The issue of unfair competition is considered in section 43(a) if the Lanham Act[42]. This is part of the American constitution is used as a conflict resolution reference in Internet domain disputes.

Federal Trademark Dilution Act

One of the most important laws and regulations that are involved in the domain name dispute resolution strategies of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in 1996. This specific legislation amended the Lanham Act to incorporate legal action that can be taken when an individual seeks to dilute the trademark of another organization. The Act provided a measure that could protect famous domain names to ensure that others do not decrease the value in the organization. This is an important approach to internet domain protection because the most logical economic damage of domain name ownership is that the name of the organization affected by the original person in the study[43]. This is especially effective in dealing with cybersquatting because individuals who hold the domain names for economic benefit by selling back are no longer allowed to access the domain names of well-known trademarks. One of the most important consideration is the main understanding of dilution offered by the United States court system.

Two main specific types of dilution are handled in the United States. The first type of trademark dilution is blurring. Blurring refers to the reduction of the selling power and the value of the original trademark by the individual or the organization using the trademark. This is mainly viewed from the perspective that the trademark use reduces the effectiveness of the trademark among others in the organization. Blurring does not require any malicious intent[44]. The only requirement is the use of the trademark and the perception that is brought to the public. The second type of trademark dilution is through tarnishing. Tarnishing in the United States refers to the process through which an organization or an individual uses the trademark in an organization in a way that is different from the original use of the organization[45]. In the process, the trademark is tarnished by the association of the second trademark use from that of the original organization.

Despite the application of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in some cases, there are numerous other cases that have not been able to apply the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. This is due to two inherent weaknesses in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The first is the threshold that is required to determine whether a trademark is famous or not. The threshold has only been applied to companies that have a global reach or those that are household names. However, there are other cases where within a given locality a trademark is associated with another organization. This makes trademark dispute resolution complicated. The second consideration is the commercial use of the domain in commerce. This simply restricts Internet domain name rights to organizations that are using the internet domain to achieve a specific purpose[46]. This is an important consideration that has to be reviewed based on the collection and the distribution of information. These two restrictions highlight gaps that have to be filled that weaken most of the domain name disputes.

When looking at the United States method of dealing with domain name disputes it is important to note that in some cases, the difference between federal and common laws in the states causes a problem in dispute resolution. Any jurisdiction must be within that of the state, and the minimal constitutional thresholds attained according to the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem of the establishment of the jurisdiction in personal domain name cases is difficult[47]. The second issue is that most of the trademark regulations associated with domain names are based on commercial use. This favors the organizations as opposed to individuals.

In 1999, the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was enacted to deal with issues of cybersquatting.  The main problem with the measures that were set in place is the inability of dealing with personal domain name disputes[48]. In most cases, the domain name dispute registration laws that have been put in place are discriminatory against most other individuals in domain name disputes. The United States has been criticized for favoring corporations and protecting their domain name variations based on the threshold that has been set by the organization[49]. In addition to this, the largest corporations seem to retain the domain names regardless of the domain name issues in the organization. This is a limitation that has to be considered by others in the organization.

4.1.2 The United Kingdom Approach to Domain name conflict resolution

One of the main differences that can be seen between the United Kingdom and the United States is the number of domain disputes that exist. In the United Kingdom, domain name disputes that reach the courts are far fewer than those in the United States. However, there are specific legislations that can be used to deal with domain name disputes in The United Kingdom.

Trademark Infringement in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, there is no simple solution that provides insight on how trademark issues can be resolved in the country. However, the first point of reference is the 1994 Trade Marks Act. The first consideration is section 10 of the Trade Marks Act which defines trademark infringement as the use of a sign or an identifier for the same purpose as that of the original trademark. This is a more definitive registration as opposed to the confusion that exists in the United States. In the United States, there is an ambiguity that exists. However, the Trade Mark Act provides a clear definition that trademark infringement must involve an identical use of the trademark. In the domain name realm, the identical nature is not strictly exactly the same[50]. The identical purpose is mainly in reference to the industry in use or the products and services that are sold by the organization. In cases when the organization deals with a specific purpose or product.

The main problem that arises with the trademark resolution of disputes is the term, “Use in the course of trade.” This is unclear and seems to leave a loophole. If domain name infringement has to be done considering the use of trade, then cybersquatters can highlight that the domain names are not in the use of trade. For many years, this seemed to highlight that domain issues that had to be resolved involved organizations or individuals that were using the domain names for commercial purposes. However, a landmark case between British Telecommunications Plc. and others versus one in a Million Ltd. and others was able to highlight that domain names have a commercial value even when cybersquatting is occurring. According to the case, the act of holding a domain name with the hope that it increases in value can be referred to as use in the course of trade[51]. The main loophole is that the domain name holder has to offer the domain name for sale to the trademark organization for the use of trade aspect to be fully implemented in the organization. The United Kingdom registrations also highlight a major weakness when dealing with the type of domain. The .com domain is assumed to be a commercial website, and this means that the “use of trade aspect,” of the trademark law can be applied to the domain. However, other domains like the .edu and the .org do not have the same commercial value. This limits the implementation of the commerce aspect of United Kingdom trademark infringement laws.

One of the most notable cases in the United Kingdom domain name dispute resolution is the Avnet versus Isoact. The plaintiffs in the case highlighted that the use of the word Avnet in the Internet domain name of the defendant in relation to similar services was an infringement of the Trade Mark Act. In specific, section 10 of the Trade-Mark Act. However, the court found that the services provided by the defendant were different from those offered by the plaintiff. This is one of the landmark cases that is used as a point of reference when dealing with internet domain cases[52]. The first consideration is that the United Kingdom judicial system has provided a boundary that restricts the monopoly without any similarity in the products. This means that corporations in the United Kingdom are not inherently favored by the domain name registrations. The second consideration is that has to be considered is that a trademark may be used by different organizations in different sectors and the assumption that a trademark will be restricted only to one organization indicates that there is an issue that has to be considered. The Avnet name was considered a trademark except when the services provide by the organizations do not overlap. This provides a similar regulation that exists in organizations[53]. This means that a domain name cannot be claimed by an organization that does not have the same trading industry as the main organization.

Passing Off

In cases when the person who is seeking the domain name ownership does not have a trademark, then the law of passing off is implemented to ensure that the situation is resolved as effectively as possible. There are three things that are reviewed in this case. The first is misinterpretation existing. The second involves the misinterpretation made by the trader in the course of the trade. The third is misinterpretation made to the consumers of the services supplied by the seller. The final part involves looking at the misinterpretation in calculating injure the goodwill or the business of another trader[54]. The misinterpretation that is caused in actual damage or goodwill of the trader.

Another part of the Trade Mark Act in section 10 (2) highlights that a trademark infringement can occur when an organization uses a sign or symbol that will cause confusion to the general public concerning a specific trademark or regulation. This also includes a perceived association with the trademark offered by the organization. There are four specific steps required to apply the process in of determining the relationship between several domain names the section 10 (2) domain infringement legislation. The first step involves the determination of the similarity of the trademark. The second step involves determining the similarity of the trade or commerce engaged by the two parties. The third step involves determining whether the goods and services offered by the companies have any similarities. If the three steps are not all clear, then the case is deemed not to fall within trademark jurisdiction[55]. In cases when all three cases are included, then the final step is determined. The final step involves determining whether the study will hurt the public. This is the set procedure when dealing with cases of involvement in certain procedures.

Another section that deals with domain name infringement is section 10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act. The legislation dictates that that there are several different issues that have to be considered when it comes to determining the trademark. In particular the sign or symbol is deemed infringement if it is used by without due cause, it is to the detriment of the original trademark and takes unfair advantages. This is the part of the legislation that introduces a similar phrase of dilution into the study. The existence of dilution provides support for the organization. Another important consideration is the fact that the British system is more fine-tuned towards reducing the corporate companies from having too much power in the domain conflict resolution[56]. This is one of the main differences between The United Kingdom method of arbitration and that of the United States.

4.2 Discussions

The review of the United States and the United Kingdom has revealed that there are some similarities as well as differences in the internet domain name conflict resolution measures adopted by the different countries.

One of the main similarities that exist is the definition that is provided for trademarks. In the United States, a trademark infringement occurs when someone uses another person’s trademarks and applies the trademark for his or her goods and services despite belonging owned by someone else[57]. Additionally, any commercial gain or loss by anyone other than the trademark owner is an infringement of the trademark. In the United Kingdom, trademark infringement is defined as the as the use of a sign or an identifier for the same purpose as that of the original trademark.

One the other hand, the difference in the two cases is that in the United States the trademark being used by another person defines trademarks. This means that regardless of the industry or the geographical location, any use of another trademark is defined as trademark infringement. This makes it difficult because the same trademark can be used in two different locations at the same time. This limits the applicability of the trademark infringement laws. On the other hand, the United Kingdom only considers trademarks to be infringed in cases where there is a similarity between the goods and the services[58]. This is a major distinction that reduces the confusion that exists in the United States due to the ambiguity of the trademark infringement definition.

In the United States, there are some three main considerations that have to be considered. The first is the consideration the proof of the ownership of the trademark. According to the Lanham Act, any proof of ownership needs to be done first with an undeniable ownership of the trademark. This is the same case in the United Kingdom with the Trade Marks Act that requires ownership of the trademark to be determined. The next requirement is the determination whether the trademark owner experiences economic loss[59]. Under the Lanham Act, the economic loss is measured both financially and intrinsically. This is because the loss of reputation is also considered to be an economic loss. In the United Kingdom, one of the most important parts of trademark legislations is the commerce proof. The person with the trademark needs to be doing something that has a commercial impact to determine whether there is some trademark infringement. This is an important consideration in trademark legislation. Finally, the organizations need to show that there is confusion that arises from the different products. In the United States, the concept of confusion is broad while in the United Kingdom it is narrowed to confusion due to offering similar products[60]. An important point that has to be noted is that the United States has the largest number of domain name conflicts as opposed to the United Kingdom due to the number of domain names registered.

One of the main differences is the existence of the likelihood of confusion and how it is treated in the two different countries. The United States treats the two top layer domains in different ways. Some courts believe that the .net and .com domain names are distinct, and there can be no confusion between the two organizations. This approach means that organizations that have people using their trademarks under and different TLD are unable to stop the unlawful use of the domain name. However, only a minority of the courts agree that there is sufficient differentiation between TLDs[61]. However, the rest of the courts in the United States have a different way of dealing with the two main top layer domains. This is because of the judicial system that is not based on rigid laws as in United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, confusion caused by the definition of trademarks is not a problem because the definitive definition is given by the Trade Mark Act of 1994. The simple definition limits the number of cases. In addition to this, the failure to consider a trademark unless the companies have similar goods and services means that only cases, where economic loss is occurring, is included in the study.

One similarity that exists is that the inclusion of dilution in the process of determining whether a party does have a legitimate dispute in determining the work that is going on in the organization. Dilution in the United States is determined by two different thresholds. The first is the threshold that is required to determine whether a trademark is famous or not. The threshold has only been applied to companies that have a global reach or those that are household names. This gives power to larger corporations with a greater brand name. The next consideration is whether the domain name is being used for a commercial purpose. Any cases where the trademark is in use by an individual for casual matters limits the emergence of other organizations. This provides a limitation to the power that individuals have in the in the domain name conflict resolution process[62]. For this reason, the United States domain name dispute resolution seems to favor larger organizations as opposed to smaller organizations.

In the United Kingdom, a fairer approach is used in determining whether the defendant should retain the domain name or kept by the plaintiff. However, there are high thresholds that have to be maintained to ensure that there is fairness sin domain name. The first consideration is the similarity of the products. There is also a commerce aspect that is determined even in cases of cybersquatting where the retention for price appreciation is considered to be commerce. The final issue is ensuring that there are sufficient cases and issues that have to be resolved in an organization. The method of conflict resolution does not favor large corporations. Instead, most cases that do not warrant attribution are settled out of court. This provides a fairer justice system than the United States domain name resolution process.

4.2.1 Discussion based on the research questions

All the three research questions have been answered adequately to ensure that there is no loss of revenue in the organization. All three research questions are answered independently based on the two case studies as well as the comparison.

1. What are the similarities between the domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States?

There are numerous similarities that have been highlighted in the study. The first is an almost similar definition of trademarks. Trademarks in both countries refer to the identifying feature of an organization to the general public. The trademarks are considered to be numerous. The main trademark is the name or brand that is associated with the company.

The second similarity is the similarity in the approach of dealing with trademark issues. The first is determination that the plaintiff have a trademark. In the United States, this must be a trademark that is known by most people. This is the same case in the United Kingdom where proof of the trademark is a requirement in any case. The second consideration is the economic value associated with the trademark. In the United Kingdom, this is associated with the commercial aspect of the trademark that is disputed. The third consideration is that this causes confusion[63]. The confusion aspect is connected with the commercial aspect of an organization.

The third similarity that exists is that any case that out rightly shows that trademarks have been affected by the domain name registration leads to the plaintiff being awarded ownership of the domain name. These similarities provide a clear picture of how the domain conflict resolutions are tackled. It is worth noting that most of the policies started in the United States.

1. To determine the differences between domain and trademark laws in the United Kingdom and the United States

When it comes to differences between how the domain and trademark laws are approached in the country, the main issues arise from the court systems in the two countries. In the United States, regulations are mainly biased towards large corporations. The level of how renowned an organization is the main determinant in giving a trademark. This is biased because the larger organization may have acquired the domain name after the other organization. This creates a bias based on the size of an organization. An organization that may be older but smaller has a higher likelihood of loss of the domain name when dealing with large corporations. In the United Kingdom, the main consideration is whether the two institutions have a similarity. The similarity determines whether the trademark of the company is being used to give and advantage to the other organization. Numerous cases have been denied because the organizations do not engage in the same businesses[64]. This reduces the monopoly of large corporations that wish to obtain domain names regardless of the commercial aspect of the organization.

1. To determine the most effective way of dealing with cybersquatting, domain name propaganda and typo-squatting in the United Kingdom

The final research question provides a clear picture of the method used in dealing with cyber-squatting, propaganda and typosquatting in the United Kingdom. Cybersquatting is the most complicated in the United Kingdom because the plaintiffs in domain name cases need to provide a clear indication that the domain is being used in commerce. Cybersquatters simply hold the domain name to sell the domain name to organizations at a higher price. However, the case involving British Telecommunications Plc. and others versus one in a Million Ltd. and others was able to highlight that domain names have a commercial value even when cybersquatting is occurring. Drawing from the case, the act of holding a domain name with the hope that it increases in value can be referred to as use in the course of trade[65]. This provides a clear picture through which cybersquatting cases can resolve in the United Kingdom.

The issue of propaganda is another important problem when it comes to domain names. Propaganda involves the use of the use of similar domain names in spreading information that has a negative effect on the brand or trademark of the organization. The Trade Mark Law in the United Kingdom highlights specific measures clauses that allow easy resolution of propaganda disputes. In the first case, trademarks for organizations are protected because they have an economic value. Propaganda clearly affects the value of the trademark, and this is grounds for the government to take action against the people causing propaganda using the domain name. Another consideration is the cause of confusion in the public. Propaganda has the main aim of causing confusion to the public with malicious intent for the organization. This is another criterion for issues dealing with domain names. The threshold is already beyond the minimum requirement in all propaganda cases[66]. The economic aspect and the confusion are all grounds to lead to rulings that favor the plaintiffs in all cases. This is an important way that different people in the organization can resolve their issues in the organization.

The final issue that has to be resolved is how typo-squatting is dealt with in the United Kingdom. Typo-squatting refers to the use of different domain names with variations. The first consideration is that the trademark of one company is being manipulated. The second criterion is determining the economic aspect. Most cases of typo-squatting involve using a variation of a trademark to boost sales of business. This goes within the commerce requirement in the United Kingdom Trademark laws. Typo-squatting causes clear confusion in the general public[67]. This can cause a negative damage to the original company trademark when goods of a less desirable quality are sold. The best alternative is ensuring that all the people in the organization are guided to ensure that there are no negative repercussions.

5.0 Conclusion and recommendations

            5.1 Conclusion

The study sought to provide a clear assessment of the legislations that influence domain name resolution in the United Kingdom using the United States to provide a comparison. The first similarity that has been identified is the definition that both organizations give an almost identical definition of trademarks. This indicates that the factors in the United Kingdom that make up a trademark are the same as those in the United States. Another similarity that has been identified is the approach that both countries use in dealing with trademark issues[68]. In both countries, the first step is determining whether the plaintiff has a trademark. The second is determining whether the determinant has infringed the trademark. Next a determination of the economic impact of the infringement and lastly a confusion of the public is performed to provide a clear picture of exactly what has caused the infringement. The third and the final similarity that has been identified is the actions taken after trademark infringement has occurred[69]. The plaintiff in both countries is given the rights of owning the domain name after infringement is determined. The similarities can be attributed to the fact that the United States is the countries with the largest number of domains and the domain name resolution process there has been applied, at least partially, in almost all countries. Domain name disputes in both countries are resolved based on the trademark regulations that exist.

Another objective of the study was to highlight the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom. The main difference that has been highlighted is in the determination of trademark infringement. In the United States, trademark infringement refers to the use of any sign by other businesses or individuals. The ambiguity of the definition means that any person or organization that has a sign that can be proved to be the trademark of a large corporation can be taken to court. This makes domain name resolution of issues a complicated affair. Any name or variation of a name can be taken to a domain name resolution panel in the United States if the plaintiff can prove that the domain name can infringe on the trademark of the organization[70]. This makes domain name resolution in the United States one sided since it protects the large organizations. In the United Kingdom, the regulation is more specific highlighting that the trademark infringement must be proved to be similar or identical to the original organization. In case the products or services are not the same then most cases are not awarded. This protects those with domain names from bullying by large corporations in cases where trademark infringement is not being done[71].

The final objective sought to determine the process of dealing with cybersquatting, propaganda and typo-squatting in the United Kingdom. As highlighted above, the United Kingdom process of conflict resolution is enshrined in the Trade Mark Act[72]. The Act highlights that three major aspects have to be proved by the plaintiff for judgment to be made in his or her favor. One of the main considerations is whether there is a proven trademark. This is done by looking at the name and the uniqueness of the name to highlight that it should be considered to be a trademark. The second consideration is the existence of commerce by the defendant who is using the domain name. Finally, the domain name should cause sufficient confusion within a given threshold. The third consideration is whether there is any sufficient confusion that arises from the domain name[73]. These three are used in all cases. When it comes to cyber-squatting, the trademark exists because the plaintiff in all cases is a large organization being targeted by a cyber-squatter. The next consideration is that the cyber-squatter is conducting commerce by obtaining the domain and waiting for the price to appreciate. Finally, the domain name creates confusion because it provides people with the perception that the organization in question owns it. Propaganda is the next main domain name dispute that has to be considered. The trademark exists because the propaganda cannot affect an organization unless it is well known. People who commit the domain name propaganda spreading only do it to organizations with a well-known name. Commercially, propaganda seeks to reduce the profitability of an organization. This is a serious case of corporate espionage that needs to be resolved as early as possible. The confusion is also present since the organization reduces the profitability of the organization. Finally, typosquatting uses recognized brand names to attract customers or people to the typo domain[74]. Economically, the organizations lose customers to the other domain and can suffer negative financial repercussions.

5.2 Recommendations

The United Kingdom has done well to ensure that all people are protected. One of the main problems that have been highlighted is the lengthy procedure that is being used in resolving most issues. Domain name disputes take time because they follow the same process in the court system. This is not an effective approach. The literature review has highlighted that online domain resolution holds promise in reducing the process resolving disputes[75]. The main recommendation that can be given is the application of online resolution in domain names because the aspects that need to be deliberate are finite.

 

 

References

Azzalini A and Scarpa B, Data Analysis and Data Mining (Oxford University Press, USA 2012)

Badgley R, Domain Name Disputes (Aspen Publishers Online 2012)

Banisar D, ‘Virtual Borders, Real Laws [Internet Activity and Treaties]’ (2002) 39 IEEE Spectr.

Barrett M, Intellectual Property (Aspen Publishers Online 2008)

Beatty J, Samuelson S and Beatty J, Business Law and the Legal Environment (Thomson/South-Western/West 2004)

Beginners Guide to Domain Names (ICANN 2009)

Biederman D, Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries (Praeger 2007)

Bitlaw.com, ‘Domain Name Disputes (Bitlaw)’ (2015) <http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html> accessed 10 June 2015

Bocarnea M, Reynolds R and Baker J, Online Instruments, Data Collection, And Electronic Measurements (IGI global 2013)

Burnett R, ‘Cybersquatting Dispute Resolution’ (2005) 47 ITNOW

Bygrave L and Bing J, Internet Governance (Oxford University Press 2009)

Catania P, Cohn L and Turner L, Domain Names and Trademarks (Lawbook Co 2001)

CNN, ‘Trump Awarded Damages In ‘Cybersquatting’ Case over Domain Names’ (2015) <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/01/studentnews/trump-cybersquatting-lawsuit/> accessed 10 June 2015

David Y, ‘Virtual Reality: Can We Ride Trademark Law to Surf Cyberspace’ (2000) 10 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol10/iss3/5> accessed 10 June 2015

Davis W, ‘Judge Sides with Google in Domain Name Dispute’ (Mediapost.com, 2015) <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/234124/judge-sides-with-google-in-domain-name-dispute.html> accessed 10 June 2015

Delta G and Matsuura J, Law Of the Internet (Aspen Law & Business 2009)

Doyle K and Klein S, Advanced Seminar on Trademark Law, 2009 (Practising Law Institute 2009)

Dratler J and McJohn S, Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative, and Industrial Property (Law Journal Press 2006)

Edwards L and Waelde C, Law and the Internet: A Framework for Electronic Commerce (Hart 2000)

Fhima I, Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names (Edward Elgar 2009)

Flick U, Designing Qualitative Research (Sage Publications 2008)

Flores A, To Each Country, Its Own Law and Domain: The Legal Structures of Cctld’s In Comparative Perspective (ProQuest 2008)

Forbes, ‘Google Domains Now Lets Everyone in the U.S. Buy and Sell Domain Names’ (2015) <http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/01/15/google-domains/> accessed 10 June 2015

Friese S, Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.Ti (SAGE 2012)

Gader-Shafran R, The Trademark Law Dictionary (iUniverse 2010)

Goldsmith R, ‘Using the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale To Identify Innovative Internet Consumers’ (2001) 11 Internet Research

Goodwin J, SAGE Secondary Data Analysis (SAGE 2012)

Govaert G, Data Analysis (ISTE 2009)

Graham J, Missing Data (Springer 2012)

Gulliksen T and Gulliksen T, Internet Domain Names and Trademarks (Institutt for rettsinformatikk 2001)

Halpern S, Nard C and Port K, Fundamentals of United States Intellectual Property Law (Kluwer Law International 2011)

Hedley S, The Law Of Electronic Commerce And The Internet In The UK And Ireland (Cavendish Pub 2006)

Hesseldahl A, ‘Legal Battle Being Waged over Juliaroberts.Com’ (Forbes, 2000) <http://www.forbes.com/2000/06/05/mu3.html> accessed 10 June 2015

Kelblová H, ‘Trademarks, Consumer Protection and Domain Names on The Internet’ (2007) 55 Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis

Kelion L, ‘Wayne Rooney And A Decade Of .Uk Domain Name Disputes – BBC News’ (BBC News, 2015) <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15604222> accessed 10 June 2015

Kirkup L and Kirkup L, Data Analysis for Physical Scientists (Cambridge University Press 2012)

Komaitis K, The Current State Of Domain Name Regulation (Routledge 2010)

Komaitis K, ‘Trade Mark Law’s Increment through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2011) 6 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

Kruger L, Internet Domain Names (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 2005)

LaFrance M, Understanding Trademark Law (LexisNexis 2009)

Lindenthal T, ‘Valuable Words: The Price Dynamics of Internet Domain Names’ (2014) 65 Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Lindsay D, ‘Geographic Names and Domain Names’ (2014) 2 ajTDE

Lindsay D, International Domain Name Law (Hart Pub 2007)

Lipton J, Internet Domain Names, Trademarks and Free Speech (Edward Elgar 2010)

MacQueen H, Waelde C and Laurie G, Contemporary Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2007)

Madi R, ‘The Conflict between Country Code Top Level Domains and Trademarks: A Brief Overview of the Jordanian National Solutions’ (2006) 20 arab law q

McGrady P, Mcgrady on Domain Names (LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2007)

Meyer J, Reliability (Oxford University Press 2010)

Miller R, Business Law Today (South-western 2013)

Miller R, Business Law Today, Standard: Text & Summarized Cases (Cengage Learning 2012)

MobileReference., US Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Laws Study Guide (MobileReferencecom 2007)

Moss T, The Reliability Data Handbook (ASME 2005)

Ng J, The Domain Name Registration System (Routledge 2013)

Pathak A, Legal Aspects of Business (Commercial Law 2013)

Pike and Fische, Digital Millennium Copyright Act – 2005 Supplement (Pike and Fische 2015)

Pisacreta E, Ostrow S and Alder K, Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis (Law Journal Press 2015)

Rainer R and Cegielski C, Introduction to Information Systems (Wiley 2012)

Ries A and Ries L, the 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding (HarperBusiness 2000)

Ross T, Intellectual Property Law (Law Journal Press 2000)

Roy A, ‘Reflections on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy As It Enters Its Second Decade’ (2012) 1 IJTPL

Sawers P, ‘Welcome to the World of Cybersquatting’ (The Next Web, 2011) <http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/05/29/welcome-to-the-world-of-cybersquatting/> accessed 10 June 2015

Simco G, ‘Extending the Internet 2 Domain’ (2002) 5 the Internet and Higher Education

Stacey A and Stacey A, Effective Information Retrieval from the Internet (Chandos Pub 2004)

Varas C, ‘Sealing the Cracks: A Proposal to Update the Anti-Cybersquatting Regime To Combat Advertising-Based Cybersquatting’ (2008) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

Westermeier J, ‘Infringing Sale of Trademarks as Keyword Triggers For Internet Advertisements’ (2009) 10 Computer Law Review International

Wilkof N and Burkitt D, Trade Mark Licensing (Sweet & Maxwell 2005)

Wong D, ‘Avery Dennison Corp. vs. Sumpton’ (2000) 10 Berkeley Technology Law Journal

Yin R, Case Study Research (Sage Publications 2003)

Yu P, Intellectual Property and Information Wealth (Praeger Publishers 2007)

Zainol Z, ‘The Chronicles Of Electronic Commerce: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Under The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2010) 16 European Law Journal

Avery Dennison Corporation v Jerry Sumpton [1999] 999 9th circuit, 999. 9th circuit No CV 97-407 JSL (999 9th circuit)

[1] Lennard G Kruger, Internet Domain Names (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 2005), p. 7. Provides an overview of internet domains and trademark laws.

[2] Lennard G Kruger, Internet Domain Names (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 2005), p. 2.  Provides an overview of the relationship between internet domains, freespeech and how trademark affects regulations. An economic overview is also provided for internet domain names.

 

[3] Steve Hedley, The Law Of Electronic Commerce And The Internet In The UK And Ireland (Cavendish Pub 2006), p. 180. An overview of the main cases affecting internet domains in the United Kingdom is provided.

[4] Jenny Ng, The Domain Name Registration System (Routledge 2013), p. 45

 

[5] Kelblová, H. 2007. “Hana Kelblová, ‘Trademarks, Consumer Protection and Domain Names on The Internet’ (2007) 55 Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, p. 101-106, p. 102. This article highlights the relationship between domain names and trademarks. It highlights the numerous problems that arise when trademark names are used in domains of other individuals or organizations.

[6] Konstantinos Komaitis, The Current State Of Domain Name Regulation (Routledge 2010), p. 22. This book provides the best summary of the current legislation of UK domain names. This includes the trademarks and the method of acquiring domain names. Afew wellknown disputes are highlighted to provide a better understanding of the United Kingdom legislaton.

 

[7] Thies Lindenthal, ‘Valuable Words: The Price Dynamics of Internet Domain Names’ (2014) 65 Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, p. 871. Lindethal provides an economic perspective on the importance of domain names.

 

[8] David Lindsay, ‘Geographic Names And Domain Names’ (2014) 2 ajTDE, doi:10.7790/ajtde.v2n1.29, This article highlights the problem that arises when geography no longer plays a part in trademarks on the Internet

[9] Kieran G Doyle and Sheldon H Klein, Advanced Seminar on Trademark Law, 2009 (Practising Law Institute 2009). This book provides a review of the key information that is offered by seminar on trademark law in New York

[10] Ramzi Madi, ‘The Conflict between Country Code Top Level Domains and Trademarks: A Brief Overview of the Jordanian National Solutions’ (2006) 20 arab law q. p. 411-418. doi:10.1163/026805506779147265, p. 412. This book highlights the Jourdanian perspective of domain names and their importance.

[11] Al Ries and Laura Ries, The 11 Immutable Laws Of Internet Branding (HarperBusiness 2000), p. 17. This book provides insight on the importance of trademarks as a form of internet branding

[12] J.T. Westermeier, ‘Infringing Sale of Trademarks as Keyword Triggers For Internet Advertisements’ (2009) 10 Computer Law Review International. 10 (4): 97. doi:10.9785/ovs-cri-2009-97. This article highlights the importance of trademarks on the internet for commercial purposes.

[13] Peter K Yu, Intellectual Property And Information Wealth (Praeger Publishers 2007), p. 21

[14] Roger LeRoy Miller, Business Law Today (South-western 2013), p. 23

[15] R. Kelly Rainer and Casey G Cegielski, Introduction To Information Systems (Wiley 2012), p. 13

 

[16] Roger Miller, Business Law Today, Standard: Text & Summarized Cases (Cengage Learning 2012), p. 32

[17] Arturo Azuara Flores, To Each Country, Its Own Law And Domain: The Legal Structures Of Cctld’s In Comparative Perspective (ProQuest 2008), p. 36

[18] R. Burnett, ‘Cybersquatting Dispute Resolution’ (2005) 47 ITNOW, p. 3

[19] C. T. Varas, ‘Sealing The Cracks: A Proposal To Update The Anti-Cybersquatting Regime To Combat Advertising-Based Cybersquatting’ (2008) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, p. 246-261, p. 249

 

[20] D. Banisar, ‘Virtual Borders, Real Laws [Internet Activity And Treaties]’ (2002) 39 IEEE Spectr, p. 51-52, p. 51

[21] Greg Simco, ‘Extending The Internet 2 Domain’ (2002) 5 The Internet and Higher Education, p. 67-70, p. 68

[22] John Goodwin, SAGE Secondary Data Analysis (SAGE 2012), p. 151

[23] K. Komaitis, ‘Trade Mark Law’s Increment Through The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2011) 6 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, p. 553-567, p. 556

[24] Alpana Roy, ‘Reflections On The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy As It Enters Its Second Decade’ (2012) 1 IJTPL, p. 15

[25] Zinatul A. Zainol, ‘The Chronicles Of Electronic Commerce: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Under The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2010) 16 European Law Journal, p. 233-242, p. 236

[26] John W Graham, Missing Data (Springer 2012).

[27] T.R Moss, The Reliability Data Handbook (ASME 2005).

[28] John Goodwin, SAGE Secondary Data Analysis (SAGE 2012).

[29] Susanne Friese, Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.Ti (SAGE 2012).

 

[30] Uwe Flick, Designing Qualitative Research (Sage Publications 2008).

 

[31] Gérard Govaert, Data Analysis (ISTE 2009).

[32] J. Patrick Meyer, Reliability (Oxford University Press 2010).

[33] Adelchi Azzalini and Bruno Scarpa, Data Analysis and Data Mining (Oxford University Press, USA 2012), p. 27

[34] Robert K Yin, Case Study Research (Sage Publications 2003), p. 35

[35] Sheldon W Halpern, Craig Allen Nard and Kenneth L Port, Fundamentals Of United States Intellectual Property Law (Kluwer Law International 2011)., p. 242

 

[36] Mary LaFrance, Understanding Trademark Law (LexisNexis 2009), p. 23

[37] Rachel Gader-Shafran, The Trademark Law Dictionary (iUniverse 2010), p. 44

 

[38] Avery Dennison Corporation v Jerry Sumpton [1999] 999 9th circuit, 999. 9th circuit No CV 97-407 JSL (999 9th circuit).

[39] Diane K. Wong, ‘Avery Dennison Corp. vs. Sumpton’ (2000) 10 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, p. 245-264, p. 247

[40] Yan David, ‘Virtual Reality: Can We Ride Trademark Law To Surf Cyberspace’ (2000) 10 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol10/iss3/5> accessed 10 June 2015.

[41] Arturo Azuara Flores, To Each Country, Its Own Law And Domain: The Legal Structures Of Cctld’s In Comparative Perspective (ProQuest 2008), p. 40

[42] Margreth Barrett, Intellectual Property (Aspen Publishers Online 2008), p. 311

[43] Terence P Ross, Intellectual Property Law (Law Journal Press 2000), p. 40

[44] Jeffrey F Beatty, Susan S Samuelson and Jeffrey F Beatty, Business Law And The Legal Environment (Thomson/South-Western/West 2004), p. 148

[45] Jay Dratler and Stephen McJohn, Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative, And Industrial Property (Law Journal Press 2006), p. 125

 

[46] Neil J Wilkof and Daniel Burkitt, Trade Mark Licensing (Sweet & Maxwell 2005), p. 17

[47] Pike and Fische, Digital Millennium Copyright Act – 2005 Supplement (Pike and Fische 2015).

[48] Edward Pisacreta, Seth Ostrow and Kenneth Alder, Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis (Law Journal Press 2015).

[49] Donald E Biederman, Law And Business Of The Entertainment Industries (Praeger 2007), p. 435

 

[50] Alison Stacey and Adrian Stacey, Effective Information Retrieval From The Internet (Chandos Pub 2004), p. 17

[51] Neil J Wilkof and Daniel Burkitt, Trade Mark Licensing (Sweet & Maxwell 2005).

 

[52] Akhileshwar Pathak, Legal Aspects Of Business (Commercial Law 2013), p. 659

[53] MacQueen, Hector L., Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme Laurie. 2010. Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford: OUP Oxford, p. 719

[54] Edwards, Lilian, and Charlotte Waelde. 2000. Law and the Internet: A Framework for Electronic Commerce. New York: Hart.

[55] Ilanah Simon Fhima, Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names (Edward Elgar 2009). p. 31

[56] Margreth Barrett, Intellectual Property (Aspen Publishers Online 2008).

[57] MobileReference, US Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Laws Study Guide (MobileReference.com 2007), p. 154. This book provides an indepth asessment of the trademark laws in the United States. This provides a contrast with that of the United Kingdom.

[58] Bitlaw.com, ‘Domain Name Disputes (Bitlaw)’ (2015) <http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html> accessed 10 June 2015. BitLaw is one of the websites that provides a clear explanation of internet laws. In particular, the website was helpful in explaining the connection between trademark laws and domain names.

[59] George B Delta and Jeffrey H Matsuura, Law Of The Internet (Aspen Law & Business 2009), p. 78

[60] Wendy Davis, ‘Judge Sides with Google in Domain Name Dispute’ (Mediapost.com, 2015) <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/234124/judge-sides-with-google-in-domain-name-dispute.html> accessed 10 June 2015.The post highlights the preference of courts siding with large organizations in most domain name cases. The legal structure in the United States is not as rigid as that in the United Kingdom.

[61] Forbes, ‘Google Domains Now Lets Everyone in the U.S. Buy and Sell Domain Names’ (2015) <http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/01/15/google-domains/> accessed 10 June 2015.

 

[62] Arik Hesseldahl, ‘Legal Battle Being Waged over Juliaroberts.Com’ (Forbes, 2000) <http://www.forbes.com/2000/06/05/mu3.html> accessed 10 June 2015.This case provides one of the examples of individuals battling over ownership of a domain name. Julia Roberts is a well known figure whose name can be considered to be a trademark.

[63] Leo Kelion, ‘Wayne Rooney And A Decade Of .Uk Domain Name Disputes – BBC News’ (BBC News, 2015) <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15604222> accessed 10 June 2015. The Wayne Rooney case is one of the main examples of domain ame cases in the United Kingdom. As a popular footballer, Wayne Rooney’s name has been used by different individuals to provide information or promote certain goods.

[64] Paul Sawers, ‘Welcome To The World Of Cybersquatting’ (The Next Web, 2011) <http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/05/29/welcome-to-the-world-of-cybersquatting/> accessed 10 June 2015.The issue of how cybersquatting is approached in the United Kingdom is different from how it is approached in other areas. In the United Kingdom, Cybersquatting is considered an infringement of commerce on the aacount that the approaciation is a form of economic gain.

[65] Paul Sawers, ‘Welcome to the World of Cybersquatting’ (The Next Web, 2011) <http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/05/29/welcome-to-the-world-of-cybersquatting/> accessed 10 June 2015.

[66] Draznin, Haley. 2014. Trump awarded damages in ‘cybersquatting’ case over domain names. March 2. Accessed June 6, 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/01/studentnews/trump-cybersquatting-lawsuit/.

 

[67] Robert Badgley, Domain Name Disputes (Aspen Publishers Online 2012), p. 45

[68] C. T. Varas, ‘Sealing The Cracks: A Proposal To Update The Anti-Cybersquatting Regime To Combat Advertising-Based Cybersquatting’ (2008) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. , p. 246-261.

[69] Beginners Guide To Domain Names (ICANN 2009), p. 67

[70] Lennard G Kruger, Internet Domain Names (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 2005), p. 78

[71] Jenny Ng, The Domain Name Registration System (Routledge 2013), p. 63

[72] Hector L MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde and G. T Laurie, Contemporary Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press 2007), p. 47

[73] Lennard G Kruger, Internet Domain Names (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 2005).

[74] Thies Lindenthal, ‘Valuable Words: The Price Dynamics of Internet Domain Names’ (2014) 65 Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, p. 869-881.

[75] Ramzi Madi, ‘The Conflict between Country Code Top Level Domains and Trademarks: A Brief Overview of the Jordanian National Solutions’ (2006) 20 Arab law q. 20 (4): p.411-418. doi:10.1163/026805506779147265.