Domain Names And "3abn", Use of 3ABN Copyright in Domain Names Options

[Observer]

One of the major objectives of the lawsuit against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle was an attempt to remove from public view material posted on "save3abn" and to put a stop to the use of the "3ABN" trademark in the domain name.

Probably most of you know that "save3abn" was voluntarly closed earlier this month, then opened for 48 hours and closed again.

During the past few days some additional events have taken place that affect "save3abn." The registeration for the deomain names expired and they were not renewed. As result those names came open for use by any others who wanted to purchase them. That appears to ahve taken place. It apppears to me that they have been purchased under circumstances where thesent owners are unlikely to be identified to the public, and are essentially out of the reach of U.S.; courts.

In addition, a number of new websitess have come into operation that all use some part of the 3-ABN trademark. Again, it looks to me like many of these have been placed into operation in a manner that places them out of the reach of U.S. courts.

Here are some of the websites that are now in operation:

www.savedfrom3abn.com
www.save-3abn.com
www.3ABNexamined.info
www.3abninvestigated.info
www.3abncritiqued.info
www.3abnanalyzed.info
www.analyzing3abn.info
www.evaluating3ABN.info
www.save-3abn.info

The first listed website is evidently in a developmental stage. It will be confusing to many people, and it remains to be seen as to the content that it will eventually have. In any case it probably will not contain its present content.

All of the other websites contain the content previously posted on "save3abn."

The 7th and 8th websites redirect people to the last listed website.

In view of what we have seen develop in the past few days, I wonder how many more websites will spring up and where in the world they will be located. IF they are out of the reach of U.S. courts, waht is 3-ABN going to do to protect their trademark?

I do not know the answers to the above questions. Perhaps some of the 3-ABN defenders in this forum can enlighten us. I await their response.



This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 23 2008, 09:03 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

Mr. Matthews,

It would seem that your claim that they are "out of the reach of the US legal system" is based on nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have case law that will back up that claim, or is merely your hope that this is the case? Trademark infringement is trademark infringement. Can you substantiate your speculation?

Here is an interesting quote that to some degree is in this vein, taken from:

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. KIRK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAME TRADEMARK PROTECTION

NOVEMBER 5, 1997 (LINK)

While there have clearly been difficulties for trademark owners created by domain name registrations, the AIPLA believes that existing United States law has been up to the task of allowing trademark owners to fairly resolve domain name disputes. Further, while the protection and enforcement of trademark rights needs to be bolstered in certain foreign countries, a number of foreign countries likewise have adequate laws in place. Specifically, in the United States, trademark owners have successfully employed the United States anti-dilution statute to terminate use of their marks as domain names by cybersquatters and garden variety trademark infringers. Panavision Int'l., L.P. v. Toeppen, 94 F. Supp. 1296, 1304 (C.D. Cal. 1996); Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen 41 USPQ2d 1223 (N.D. Ill. 1996) Moreover, while the anti-dilution statute on its face applies only to famous marks, the courts have expansively construed "famous" to include even locally famous trademarks. Tele Tech Customer Care Management Inc. v. Tele-Tech Co. 42 USPQ2d 1913, 1916 - 18 (C.D. Cal. 1997) It is, of course, true that those trademark owners who do not possess a famous trademark will need to rely on the other statutory provisions of the Lanham Act, notably the trademark infringement, false description and false designation of origin provisions.

This too, adds to the consideration of the legalities of recent activities:
(Source: Intellectual Property Law article written by Owen Smigelski, Esq)

There are essentially three types of disputes that can arise out of domain names. The first involves trademark infringement, which is unauthorized use of a trademark with the intent to confuse consumers. There are occasionally cases based upon trademark infringement that arise where there is an unintentional conflict between legitimate applicants for a domain name, such as the Blue Note jazz club in New York and Blue Note club in Columbia, Missouri both desiring the domain name “thebluenote.com.” The second involve cases where there is “name speculation,” for example, gaining control of a domain name to resell it to another organization. This is also known as “cybersquatting,” which has been described as an attempt “to profit from the Internet by reserving and later reselling or licensing domain names back to the companies that spent millions of dollars developing the goodwill of the trademark.” The third involves a type of trademark dilution, in which a registrant obtains a domain name with a trademark of another with the intent to illegitimately capitalize on its value. This can be either through deceptively attracting visitors to its site, or by defaming the legitimate holder of the trademark.

- FHB

. . . . In view of what we have seen develop in the past few days, I wonder how many more websites will spring up and where in the world they will be located. IF they are out of the reach of U.S. courts, waht is 3-ABN going to do to protect their trademark?

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Jan 23 2008, 09:36 AM

[awesumtenor]

Mr. Matthews,

It would seem that your claim that they are "out of the reach of the US legal system" is based on nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have case law that will back up that claim, or is merely your hope that this is the case? Trademark infringement is trademark infringement. Can you substantiate your speculation?

- FHB

The Nike name is a registered trademark of the Nike Corporation in the US... yet during the 1990 Olympics in Barcelona, Spain, many professional athletes who wore Nike sporting apparel were required to cover the famous Nike[R] word mark, which is the name for the Greek goddess of victory. Unfortunately for Nike, prior to the Olympics, a Spanish company was granted a trademark registration for the Nike[R] mark in Spain for sporting apparel. After a decade long legal battle, the Spanish sports distributor was awarded the Nike name. Nike was asked to pay $30 million for the rights to the mark. Rather than pay the fee at the time of the Olympic games, Nike had the athletes that it sponsored tape over the Nike[R] mark so it could not be seen during the games.

Having a trademark registered in the US only matters in the US; any other country where one would like to have a trademark registered, one would have to apply for it under the patent and trademark laws of that country and the relevance of their trademark status in the US to that application outside the US is variable... at best. Even though the US signed on as part of the Madrid protocols in 2003 which was, in theory, designed to allow a company to file a single application and get trademark protection in the US and 60 other countries, in practice, more than half of the countries that have signed that trade pact do not enforce that pact among their citizens and where US trademarks are concerned to those countries, that pact may as well be put on a carboard roll and named Charmin™...

In His service,
Mr. J

[awesumtenor]

Mr. Matthews,

It would seem that your claim that they are "out of the reach of the US legal system" is based on nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have case law that will back up that claim, or is merely your hope that this is the case? Trademark infringement is trademark infringement. Can you substantiate your speculation?

Here is an interesting quote that to some degree is in this vein, taken from:

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. KIRK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAME TRADEMARK PROTECTION

NOVEMBER 5, 1997 (LINK)
This too, adds to the consideration of the legalities of recent activities:
(Source: Intellectual Property Law article written by Owen Smigelski, Esq)
- FHB

Your citations are regarding case law in which another US entity infringed on a trademark within the US. As such, they are not relevant to Pastor Matthew's suggestion that entities outside the US and not subject to US trademark law are not bound by said law.

In His service,
Mr. J

[SoulEspresso]

Well, I don't know about trademarks. It seems like the current lawsuit hopes to settle whether save3abn and her clones are violating 3abn's trademark at all, since they're clearly not 3ABN websites.

But having done a little bit of searching, I found related information on in what would seem to me to be a bigger deal (in terms of the money involved): complete and total, unambiguous copyright infringement. They're similar for the purposes of the present discussion, since both are intellectual property.

Websites that serve torrent trackers in other countries have been repeatedly threatened by the likes of no less than Microsoft as well as companies such as Warner Brothers and Electronic Arts, only to be taunted on the sites because under current law, Internet servers are apparently subject to the laws of the country in which they operate. If you want an example of the correspondence involved, google "the pirate bay legal." I'm not providing a direct link because the "pirates" use very bad language in replying to the legal demands of these high-power companies. Suffice it to say that people with legitimate complaints in unambiguous cases of copyright violation (stealing software, movies and music) have had no effect on the operation of these tracking sites, because of the local laws which the sites are subject to.

For those reading, a torrent is a method of copying large files, such as software or movies that have been converted from DVD to a computer format, or music. A torrent tracker is not a server that stores the files for download, but rather allows people with torrents to network and exchange these types of files. In the U.S. it's very illegal, but not everywhere. It is unethical everywhere.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Jan 23 2008, 09:58 AM

[Ian]

Your citations are regarding case law in which another US entity infringed on a trademark within the US. As such, they are not relevant to Pastor Matthew's suggestion that entities outside the US and not subject to US trademark law are not bound by said law.

In His service,
Mr. J

Something you may not know, or have considered.

One IP# on one server on U.S soil, and one billing address and one residential phone number on U.S. soil for both of the old domains, and all the new domain names and registrations. Are they under U.S. law? one would presume so...

I wonder how all this affects the over 15,000.00 dollars Pickle already claims Joy owes him for all the work he's done here in slandering 3abn?

and how this will affect the claims and arguments both Pickle and Joy have made to the court concerning save3abn, com, and .org?

Should be interesting at the next court date...

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 23 2008, 10:10 AM

[Observer]

Mr. Matthews,

It would seem that your claim that they are "out of the reach of the US legal system" is based on nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have case law that will back up that claim, or is merely your hope that this is the case? Trademark infringement is trademark infringement. Can you substantiate your speculation?

- FHB

You are correct. I am speculating. I assumed that my post was worded in a manner that people would know that I am speculating.

However, your questions raise issues that some may not understand. So, I will respond.

The major aspect of this is a legal principle known as jurisdiction. That principle relates to the authority of the court. It simply says that the authority of a court is limited by its jurisdiction. A municipal court in the city of Sacramento, California, does not have jurisdiction over a matter localized to Winnemucca, Nevada. A Federal court in the United States does not have jurisdiction over a matter localized England.

The essential element of my comment was that U.S. Courts are limited in jurisdiction to matters that occur within the sphere of the United States.

I am making an assumption, which may be wrong as I do not know, that the ownership of some of the websites that are springing up resides outside of the United States. I am also making the asumption, which again may be wrong as I do not know, that the servers on which the content of those websites resides, are situated outside of the United States. If my two assumptions are accurate, I believe that those websites and their owners are outside the reach of U.S. courts.

You will note that I did not say that they were outside of the reach of any legal system. I simply stated that they, in my opinon, were outside of the reach of U.S. courts.

If I am wrong, I will be delighted for you or anyone else to correct me.

From this standpoint, no reference to case law is needed. I am making a simple statement of jurisdiction. If I am correct, litigation filed against such will need to be persued in courts other than the U.S. legal system.

There is another issue which I have not previously mentioned. Let us say that 3-ABN obtained a binding judgement against one of the websites that, for example, was located in Burma. Even with that binding judgement, enforcement would have to be sought in any websites located in England, China, Panama, Costa Rica, Denmark and I could go on and on. A binding judgement against a website located in Burma would do no more than shut that website down.

Folks here is the deal: Ownership of domain names and locations of websites may reside in other countries. After all the so-called Web is international. If people want to hide, there are methods that they can use to hilde ownership of the domain names and to protect the servers from enforcement actions. While I may be wrong, I think that attemps have been made to dothis in connection with some of the domain names that I have listed.

FHB: Thanks for asking. I hope I have responded to your questions.

[Observer]

Mr. Matthews,

It would seem that your claim that they are "out of the reach of the US legal system" is based on nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have case law that will back up that claim, or is merely your hope that this is the case? Trademark infringement is trademark infringement. Can you substantiate your speculation?

Here is an interesting quote that to some degree is in this vein, taken from:

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. KIRK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON INTERNET DOMAIN NAME TRADEMARK PROTECTION

NOVEMBER 5, 1997 (LINK)
This too, adds to the consideration of the legalities of recent activities:
(Source: Intellectual Property Law article written by Owen Smigelski, Esq)
- FHB

FHB:

Thanks for the citations. REad carefully thay provide more support to my position than they say that I am wrong.

[Observer]

Something you may not know, or have considered.

One IP# on one server on U.S soil, and one billing address and one residential phone number on U.S. soil for both of the old domains, and all the new domain names and registrations. Are they under U.S. law? one would presume so...

I wonder how all this affects the over 15,000.00 dollars Pickle already claims Joy owes him for all the work he's done here in slandering 3abn?

and how it will affect the claims and arguments both Pickle and Joy have made to the court?

Should be interesting at the next court date...

Ian:

You have raised a very valid point.

Purely by speculating I could respond as to reasons why your point might not apply. But, that would be speculative to an extent that I am not going there this morning.

Thererfore, we shall simply have to wait and see hiw it develops.

This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 23 2008, 10:09 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

Mr. Matthews,

I didn't necessarily offer them as refutation of your position, but to begin the discussion within a context of understanding the issues surrounding trademark law. I wouldn't say they support your position other than to indicate that there are a different set of circumstances involved in dealing with international copyright infringement. There are a number of law firms that specialize in this issue and have had growing success in winning international battles over copyright infringement/dilution.

Do you have any case law that shows that, say Johann, is not "reachable" if he were to be engaged in copyright infringement? Again, your OP is speculative at best at this point.

- FHB

FHB:

Thanks for the citations. REad carefully thay provide more support to my position than they say that I am wrong.

[awesumtenor]

Something you may not know, or have considered.

One IP# on one server on U.S soil, and one billing address and one residential phone number on U.S. soil for both of the old domains, and all the new domain names and registrations. Are they under U.S. law? one would presume so...

I wonder how all this affects the over 15,000.00 dollars Pickle already claims Joy owes him?

and how it will affect the claims and arguments both Pickle and Joy have made to the court?

Should be interesting at the next court date...

Just because the technical and administrative contact is listed as a US PO Box does not mean that the person who registered the domains is in the US... there is no name given and the email addresses involved are masked... and no, there is no law that can force the masked email provider to give up the true identity and whereabouts of the person who created said emails. With internet access and a valid major credit card, you could create the sites and obtain the PO Box from anywhere on the planet... so their having a US PO Box says nothing.

I would venture a guess that the reason the domain names were registered in the US is because anywhere else they would require a country code... and the parties that registered the names didn't want that knowledge made public.

This of course is strictly my opinion based on my 13 years experience supporting Internet Protocols including 5 years working for a hosting provider.; I don't know and have not spoken with anyone associated with any of these sites.

In His service,
Mr. J

[awesumtenor]

Mr. Matthews,

I didn't necessarily offer them as refutation of your position, but to begin the discussion within a context of understanding the issues surrounding trademark law. I wouldn't say they support your position other than to indicate that there are a different set of circumstances involved in dealing with international copyright infringement. There are a number of law firms that specialize in this issue and have had growing success in winning international battles over copyright infringement/dilution.

Do you have any case law that shows that, say Johann, is not "reachable" if he were to be engaged in copyright infringement? Again, your OP is speculative at best at this point.

- FHB

Is 3ABN trademarked where Johann is? And even if it is, can you prove he ( speaking hypothetically; we have no idea that he or anyone in this forum for that matter have anything to do with any of these domains ) registered these domains within that jurisdiction?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

Is 3ABN trademarked where Johann is? And even if it is, can you prove he ( speaking hypothetically; we have no idea that he or anyone in this forum for that matter have anything to do with any of these domains ) registered these domains within that jurisdiction?

In His service,
Mr. J

Respectfully, some of us have more than an idea here:

Whois Record for 3abncritiqued.info ( 3 Ab n Critiqued ) Click to Edit Front Page Information
Website Title: 3ABN (Three Angels Broadcasting Network) Critiqued
Title Relevancy 83%
Meta Description: Finding 3ABN amidst a swirl of moral, financial, and ethical allegations, a group of committed Seventh-day Adventists attempt to mend a broken network and save the cause of God from reproach.
Description Relevancy: 73% relevant.
AboutUs: Wiki article on 3abncritiqued.info
SEO Score: 96%
Terms: 831 (Unique: 405, Linked: 113)
Images: 4 (Alt tags missing: 4)
Links: 47 (Internal: 45, Outbound: 1)

Indexed Data

Registry Data
Created: 2008-01-21
Expires: 2009-01-21
Whois Server: whois.afilias.info

Server Data
IP Address: 69.89.27.211
IP Location - Utah - Orem - Bluehost Inc
Response Code: 200
Blacklist Status: Clear
SSL Cert: box211.bluehost.com expires in 3247 days.
Domain Status: Registered And Active Website

DomainTools Exclusive
Reverse IP: 762 other sites hosted on this server.
Monitor Domain: Set Free Alerts on 3abncritiqued.info
Free Tool:

Whois Record
Domain ID:D23467408-LRMS
Domain Name:3ABNCRITIQUED.INFO
Created On:21-Jan-2008 02:47:01 UTC
Last Updated On:21-Jan-2008 03:07:31 UTC
Expiration Date:21-Jan-2009 02:47:01 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:MyDomain, Inc. (R162-LRMS)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DOT-5X7HIBALPPLY
Registrant Name:Johann Thorvaldsson
Registrant Organization:Commitee for Accountability in Religious Media
Registrant Street1:Rein ..lfus
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Selfoss
Registrant State/Province:Selfoss
Registrant Postal Code:IS-801
Registrant Country:IS
Registrant Phone:+354.3544821598
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
Admin ID:DOT-H8K33L5R32W5
Admin Name:Johann Thorvaldsson
Admin Organization:Commitee for Accountability in Religious Media
Admin Street1:Rein ..lfus
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Selfoss
Admin State/Province:Selfoss
Admin Postal Code:IS-801
Admin Country:IS
Admin Phone:+354.3544821598
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
Billing ID:DOT-SD7NQ3XD46S3
Billing Name:N/A
Billing Organization:c/o 3ABNCRITIQUED.INFO
Billing Street1:P.O. Box 821650
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:Vancouver
Billing State/Province:WA
Billing Postal Code:98682
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.3604495933
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:
Tech ID:DOT-G20YKZN9I6W0
Tech Name:Johann Thorvaldsson
Tech Organization:Commitee for Accountability in Religious Media
Tech Street1:Rein ..lfus
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Selfoss
Tech State/Province:Selfoss
Tech Postal Code:IS-801
Tech Country:IS
Tech Phone:+354.3544821598
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
Name Server:NS1.BLUEHOST.COM
Name Server:NS2.BLUEHOST.COM

[Green Cochoa]

Your citations are regarding case law in which another US entity infringed on a trademark within the US. As such, they are not relevant to Pastor Matthew's suggestion that entities outside the US and not subject to US trademark law are not bound by said law.

In His service,
Mr. J

In today's world of technology it's mighty easy to locate "intellectual property" anywhere you please, and have access to said information anywhere. The US, much as it might wish, does not regulate the entire world...at least not yet.

I am aware of two servers in two separate countries, neither of which is the US, which have a full copy of the former save3abn.com website. There could easily be others.

The record we must ALL face one day is well beyond the reach of governments or of earthly powers to try to obfuscate, spin, or erase. It will not be assailed in a court of law within any nation on the planet.

May God preserve us...may He make our conversations sweet...for tomorrow we WILL face them again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Christ can look upon the misery of the world without a shade of sorrow for having created man. In the human heart He sees more than sin, more than misery. In His infinite wisdom and love He sees man's possibilities, the height to which he may attain. He knows that, even though human beings have abused their mercies and destroyed their God-given dignity, yet the Creator is to be glorified in their redemption. {MB vii.5}

[fallible humanbe...]

Mr. J,

Your first question is good place to start. Additionally, I was of course using Johann in a hypothetically context as he does live in a country outside of the USA. I don't find a need to prove something I did not make a claim about. Using Johann provides a concrete context for the discussion, but I am sure you realized that on your first reading of my post and understood that it was provided as such.

Now, if he did and the trademark "3ABN" and its derivatives had been registered in his country then yes, he would be reachable. Additionally, there has been nothing provided to evidence the stance that an individual outside of the United States "isn't reachable" in regards to trademark infringement. Until this is established all discussion is merely speculative at best.

- FHB

Is 3ABN trademarked where Johann is? And even if it is, can you prove he ( speaking hypothetically; we have no idea that he or anyone in this forum for that matter have anything to do with any of these domains ) registered these domains within that jurisdiction?

In His service,
Mr. J