NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
History of the Internet The history of the Internet traces back more than twenty-five years, when the U. S. government began funding research to develop packet-switching technology and communication networks. Starting in the 1960 's, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the Department of Defense established the "ARPANET" network. ARPANET was later linked to other networks established by various government agencies, universities, and research facilities. (Price, 1999).
During the 1970 s, DARPA also funded the development of a "network of networks, " which became known as the "Internet. " The protocol that allowed the networks to intercommunicate became known as Internet Protocols (IP). (Rogers, 2001). In the early 1990 s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) assumed responsibility for coordinating and funding the management of the non-military portion of the Internet infrastructure. With the rapid growth of the Internet over the next two years, the public's demand for Internet service overwhelmed the NSF. (Price, 1999). Consequently, on December 31, 1992, NSF entered into a cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) for some of these services. One of these services was domain name registration. NSI registered domain names in the top-level domains -- .
com, . net, and. org -- on a first-come, first-served basis. This first-come, first-served policy, though easy to administer, created considerable friction between trademark owners and domain name registrants. (Wise, 1999). Under U.
S. trademark law, as well as the trademark law of most other nations, several companies may use the same mark -- for example, ACME -- on unrelated goods and services, because such simultaneous use would not result in a likelihood of confusion. Rather, an action for trademark infringement will only be successful if the evidence establishes that the source or sponsorship of the defendant's products or services would confuse the relevant purchasing public. (Jacso, 2001). The problem arises, however, when two or more owners of legitimate rights in the ACME mark want to register the domain name acme.
com because only one company can own a particular domain name. Moreover, there is no legal requirement that the domain name registrant have corresponding rights in the ACME mark. Thus, there is no guarantee that the acme. com domain name will even be registered by one of the parties with legitimate trademark rights in the name. (Diaz, 1999). In the mid 1990 s, NSI developed a dispute resolution policy in an effort to address the conflicts arising between trademark owners and domain name registrants. Where the trademark owner could establish ownership of a U.
S. trademark registration that predated the activation date of the disputed domain name, and the registered mark was identical to the domain name, NSI would place the domain name "on hold. " This meant that neither party could use the domain name. A trademark owner who desired to have the domain name transferred to it for its own use was forced to file a lawsuit. For this and other reasons, NSI's policy proved unsatisfactory. (Diaz, 1999).
In response, in 1996, Internet stakeholders formed the International Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC"), a task force including representatives of the Internet Society, the International Trademark Association, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other groups. The IAHC issued a memorandum of understanding proposing a revised system for registering top-level domain names. The memorandum also contemplated the creation of Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels to resolve domain name disputes through an elaborate administrative procedure. (Jacso, 2001). Meanwhile, the U.
S. government assembled an interagency working group to formulate an official policy on privatizing the domain name system. This effort culminated in the U. S.
Department of Commerce issuing, on June 10, 1998, a revised policy statement, pursuant to which the government announced that it was prepared to recognize, and to enter into agreements with, a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system. Under such agreements, the new corporation would undertake responsibilities performed by, or on behalf of, the U. S. government or by third parties, such as NSI, under arrangements with the U.
S. government. This new corporation would later take the name Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). (Carter, 2000). With respect to trademark issues, the U. S. government recommended that ICANN adopt policies whereby domain name registrants would agree, at the time of registration or renewal, that, in cases involving cyber piracy or cyber squatting (as opposed to conflicts between legitimate competing rights holders), the domain name registrant would submit to, and be bound by, alternative dispute resolution systems authorized by ICANN. (Carter, 2000).
The government then requested WIPO to convene an international process to develop a set of recommendations for a trademark / domain name dispute resolution system. (ICANN: 2002). Thus, in July 1998, WIPO undertook an extensive process of international negotiations to develop and make recommendations to ICANN on questions arising from the interface between domain names and intellectual property rights. In April 1999, WIPO issued its final report, which it then presented to ICANN. (ICANN: 2002). The WIPO report further recommended that all domain name holders be required, in their registration agreements, to agree to this administrative procedure. However, the administrative procedure would be non-binding, and either the domain name holder or the trademark owner would retain the right to initiate litigation over the name. (Carter, 2000). The UDRP rules set forth the guidelines necessary to conduct administrative procedure.
These rules provide that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint to a service provider, in both hard copy and electronic format, in accordance with the policy and rules. The service provider reviews the complaint for administrative compliance with the policy and rules and, if it is in compliance, forwards the complaint to the respondent within three calendar days following receipt of the fees to be paid by the complainant. A respondent has twenty days from commencement of the administrative proceeding (generally the date the complaint is sent to the respondent) within which to file a response. If no response is filed (which happens in a substantial percentage of cases), the Administrative Panel is directed to decide the dispute based solely upon the complaint. (Librarians' Index to the Internet: 2000). The Administrative Panel, which usually consists of one person but can be expanded to three people, upon request of either party, is required, absent exceptional circumstances, to issue a written opinion within fourteen days of its appointment. Within three calendar days after receiving the decision from the panel, the service provider must notify each party, as well as ICANN and the concerned registrar, for example, NSI, of the decision.
The concerned registrar must then communicate the date for the implementation of any decision that would transfer or cancel a domain name registration with each party, the service provider and ICANN. However, the respondent has the opportunity, within ten days of receipt of the panel's decision, to commence a lawsuit against the complainant. If a lawsuit is filed, the panel's decision will not be implemented. (ICANN: 2002). Further, nothing in the policy or rules prevents either party from submitting the dispute to a court during the administrative proceeding, or even after it is concluded and implemented.
Additionally, the Federal Arbitration Act's limitations on judicial review do not apply in the context of decisions issued under the UDRP. Therefore, the facts giving rise to invocation of the UDRP may also be the subject of a trademark infringement lawsuit, an action for dilution, and / or a suit filed pursuant to the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. " However, where the trademark owner is motivated primarily by a desire to acquire ownership of the domain name, as opposed to an award of damages, the UDRP should be the "weapon of choice. " (Librarians' Index to the Internet: 2000). The tension that exists between the international dimension of domain names and the national scope of trademark rights further complicates matters concerning whether rights exist in a mark. Trademark rights are usually territorial in nature, while the domain name system is non-nationally delimited. That is, unlike domain name registrations, trademark rights reach no further than the borders of the country that recognize such rights.
One company can own a certain mark in the United States, but another company may own that same mark, even as used on the very same goods, in Great Britain. (Kenney, 2002). Many view the Internet as a source for alternative investment opportunities. With the Internet becoming a common part of daily life for increasing numbers of people, it should be no surprise that con artists have made cyberspace a prime hunting ground for victims. Seniors are rapidly discovering the Internet, opening up new vistas and exposing themselves to insidious new scams. (Wise, 1999). A 2002 Senior Net survey on Internet use reports that 13 % of senior Internet users are performing investment transactions online. Most seniors do not surf the Internet looking for investment opportunities.
Many use the Internet as a reference tool based on a solicitation, or information that they received from a friend, an associate, or during an investment seminar. Others may happen upon an investment website unintentionally, or they may be recipients of unsolicited emails touting certain investments. (Kenney, 2002). Many older Americans are familiar with the Internet because they used the computer during the course of their employment. They may have utilized the computer to research and verify legitimate information, but now they are accessing professional looking websites that contain misrepresentations and fraudulent information.
The Internet has made it simple for a con artist to reach millions of potential victims at minimal cost - turning the information superhighway into a road of ruin for victims of cyber fraud. Investment scam artists dont have to spend money setting up boiler rooms, making phone calls or sending mailings. Many of the online scams that state regulators see today are merely new twists on schemes that have been fleecing offline investors for years. We have seen the Internet used for legitimate business purposes such as direct offerings of securities through company Web sites and online brokerage services. Conversely, older investors are targeted with increasingly complex investment scams involving unregistered securities, promissory notes, charitable gift annuities, viatical settlements, and Ponzi schemes all promising inflated returns. Fraud can be especially damaging for older investors because their portfolios have less time to recover. (Martin, 2003).
No one knows exactly how many older Americans are victims of investment fraud on the Internet. Often, older victims don't report crimes because they don't want people to know they have lost money, or made an unsound investment. Also, they don't know how or where to complain. So what can be done to combat Internet fraud? Seniors and all investors should always call their state securities regulator if they suspect they have been the victims of investment fraud. It is possible to find a list of regulators on the NASAA website at web State regulators can tell you whether the investment product is licensed for sale in your state and whether the salesperson has a history of wrongdoing. (Wise, 1999).
The best advice is to call your state securities regulator to check out any investment before investing. Examples of State Securities Enforcement Cases My colleague, Kansas Securities Commissioner Chris Biggs, recently announced that an investment scam promoted over the Internet resulted in a prison sentence of 44 months for the con artist who pled no contest to three felony counts. In that case, the fraudster was operating under the business name Free Market Brokers and Consulting and was using the Internet and direct mail to solicit investors for a company called Venture Capital Investments. He guaranteed a high return on the investments and claimed that the investments were FDIC insured, when, in fact, it was a complete fraud. In only five weeks, this fraudster raised about $ 85, 000 from 30 investors, most of who were elderly. The Kansas securities regulators pursued this fraud and recouped much of the money for the investors.
In my own state of Illinois, seniors and other investors were solicited to send small sums of money, in some instances as little as $ 100, to put into an entity that claimed to invest in developing countries. (Gasaway, 2001). In the end, the Internet con artist, who was a retired electrician in a small town in Illinois, collected over $ 20 million, mostly through cash sent to his home. Because he spent most of his investment locally, many of his purchases were seized, forfeited and sold. Every investor who applied for restitution received their money back and the scatter and 12 other defendants were convicted and sent to jail. State securities regulators believe in combining enforcement efforts and financial education as the dual approach to protect investors against fraud. Earlier this year, as part of our effort to educate investors before they invest, state securities regulators identified the Top 10 scams, schemes and scandals investors are likely to face in 2004, based on prevalence and seriousness.
There was a confluence of both senior investment fraud and Internet fraud included in this year's Top 10. Many of the scams, which reside on the Internet, have existed for years prior to the creation of this technology. (Gasaway, 2001). The Internet is a global system and domain names can easily be accessed from anywhere in the world. In light of their internationality, is it fair to grant one company a monopoly on the use of a domain name when, perhaps, only one or only a few countries would recognize such rights in the mark? What happens if two different companies own rights in the same mark, each in a different country? In such a situation, what country's law controls whether rights in the mark exist? (Management of Internet Names, 1998).
By providing a quick and relatively inexpensive means to resolve clear-cut cases of cyber squatting, the UDRP serves a useful function. However, the UDRP needs to be revisited in an effort to clarify certain issues, including the analysis of "confusing similarity" and "noncommercial use, " particularly in the context of derogatory-type domain names. Given the international dimensions of the Internet, the question of when rights in a mark exist under the applicable UDRP is also ripe for review. (Management of Internet Names, 1998). It is also clear that situations still exist in which trademark owners may be forced to litigate to enforce their rights. Consideration should be given to expanding the UDRP to situations involving rights other than trademark rights, such as trade names and geographical indications.
It is anticipated that the UDRP will soon be amended to address at least some of these issues, as well as others. (Diaz, 1999). Words: 2, 391. Bibliography: Carter, D. S. (2000). Featured collection: The Internet Public Library. D-Lib Magazine.
Retrieved December 12, 2002, from web Diaz, K. R. (1999). Internet Scout Project. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 38 (4), 347 ff. Retrieved January 14, 2003, from Academic Search Elite at web direct. asp?
an = 2401166 &db = afh; ILL request submitted online January 14, 2003. Gasaway, L. (2001). When works pass into the public domain. Retrieved February 10, 2003 ICANN: Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, available at web org / udrp /udrp-policy- 24 oct 99. htm (last visited Feb. 13, 2002). Jacso, P. (2001, March).
Librarians' index to the Internet. Reference Reviews Archive. Retrieved November 25, 2002, from web imprint = 9999 ion = 7 &fileName = reference / archive / 20010 3 /lii. html.
Kenney, B. (2002). Sue Davidson named director of Internet Public Library. Library Journal Net Connect, 127 (12), 7. Librarians' Index to the Internet: "By librarians, for everyone!" (2000).
Connection (California State Library and Library of California), 4, 1 - 2. Retrieved November 25, 2002. Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31, 741 (June 10, 1998).
Martin, R. (2003). The library and copyright issues. Presentation to ETT 590: Instructional Technology Workshop: Copyright. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University. Price, G. (1999). Internet Scout Project looks toward the future.
Information Today, 16 (11), 35. Retrieved January 14, 2003. Rogers, M. , & Oder, N. (2001). Schneider to head librarians' index.
Library Journal, 126 (13), 24. Wise, M. (1999). Academic info. College & Research Libraries News, 60 (2). Retrieved November 18, 2002
Free research essays on topics related to: u s government, dispute resolution, con artist, older americans, domain names
Research essay sample on U S Government Dispute Resolution
