First for SA : domain name dispute decided

7th of June saw a first in domain name dispute resolution. For those of you who don’t have a clue what a “domain name dispute” is, I’ll break it down:

Wikipedia defines domain name as “a name that identifies a computer or computers on the internet. By allowing the use of unique alphabetical addresses instead of numeric ones, domain names allow Internet users to more easily find and communicate with web sites and other server-based services.”

Cybersquatting is the act of taking a domain name that resembles a trademark in order to profit from traffic to that address, or with the intention to resell the domain name for a hefty price. This obviously is considered as a trademark infringement.

The recent ruling was an adjudication which ensures that there is a fast, inexpensive procedure of challenging someone else’s registration of a domain name, either because it is abusive (takes unfair advantage of, or is used to infringe, someone else’s rights) or if it is offensive (contrary to good morals, eg. sexually or racially offensive).

Yesterday’s ground breaking ruling by SAIIPL concerned a case where the domain name www.mrplastic.co.za was registered by a
business which was one of several trading as “Mr. Plastic” in the plastics
trade. The closed corporation which originally started trading as “Mr. Plastic” 27 years ago (and which had allowed the business in question to use the same trading
name for some 18 years) objected, and applied for the domain name to be
transferred to it.

The Adjudicator refused, holding that the objector hadn’t proved that the name “Mr. Plastic” was distinctive to it. The position would have been different if the original business had registered the name ”Mr. Plastic” as a trademark, or if it had only allowed other businesses to use the trading name under a license agreement.

This is an important move in online freedom in this country: although laws can obviously restrict freedom at times, I think this is an important development towards keeping those people who prey off the internet and the intellectual property of others at bay. The specific decision of the judge in this case also shows a balanced approach to the issue.