Updated CAN-SPAM

The FTC released additional rules / clarifications for the CAN-SPAM act recently: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/05/R411008frn.pdf

 

The updates include:

 

1) "An e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender;"

 

and 

 

2) "A "sender" of commercial e-mail can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox established under United States Postal Service regulations to satisfy the Act's requirement that a commercial e-mail display a "valid physical postal address";"

 

DocStoc

Here is an interesting website that I have been using recently to find useful documents: http://www.docstoc.com/


Docstoc Content Partnership Program (CPP) - Get more documents

Domain Parking

As of March 20, 2008, it looks like the Vulcan Golf v. Google et al
case is moving forward for now (Case Number - 1:2007cv03371). The case
involves certain entities involved in the domain parking and
monetization business and the thought of whether they are liable for
their actions that may involve the infringement of a Trademark via a
domain name and/or its content.

Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008

A new bill has been proposed in Congress (it has not passed or become law yet): The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 

  

Essentially, under Sec. 3(b) of the bill, any deceptive or misleading domain names that are confusingly similar to a business name, entity, or government body, regardless of whether there is a trademark registration or not, could be in violation of this law.

 

The penalties (Sec. 4(f)(3)) are $250/violation (up to $750/violation if found to be willful), up to a maximum of $6 million, plus attorney fees.

 

While it may be good to help reduce Phishing practices, it may be going too far to cover any domain owner, even with a generic domain, that is not engaged in any phishing activity.

Cyberpiracy Prevention - Part 1

In the next series of posts, I look to break down the Cyberpiracy / Anti-Cybersquatting law. Specifically, I'll take a look at 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

 

As stated in that section, a person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark AND (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that (1) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (2) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (3) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

 

In the next post, we shall analyze bad faith and certain elements that courts take into consideration.