This is the latest in a string of highprofile domainname disputesdispute between famous people and lesser mortals，who are accused of registering Internet domain names with the express purpose of extortingextort heftyhefty sums from the domain’s “rightful”owner.The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers （ICANN），the technical body responsible for overseeing the allocationallocation of domain names，set up a procedure to resolve cases outside the legal system.But identifying and deciding such cases is harder than it sounds.And ICANN’s decision to create new domains，which it is in the process of doing，may even make the problem worse.
Domain names are handed out on a firstcome，firstserved basis.Trademarks，by contrast，are harder to get.So one man’s trademark often turns out to be somebody else’s domain name.In the first seven months of the new disputes procedure，WIPO，one of the four organizations which appoints arbitrators in disputes，has been swampedswamp with a steadily rising number of cases.An actress，Julia Roberts，an author，Jeanette Winterson，and an Irish prime minister，Bertie Ahern，have already successfully pursued “stolen”domain names through ICANN’s procedure.
ICANN’s policy determines whether or not the dispute concerns a genuine case of cybersquatting on the basis of three tests.It asks whether the name is “identical or confusingly similar”to the trademark of the aggrievedaggrieved ，whether the domain holder has a legitimate interest in the name and whether it was registered in bad faith.A British rock musician，Sting，lost his case because his adversary established that he had been using “Sting”as an aliasalias in online games for years.
Sting’s defeat was unusual：83%of the cases brought to WIPO have gone in favor of the trademark holder.Andrew McLaughlin of ICANN argues that these figures are not alarming，but rather evidence that the policy is being used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Michael Froomkin，professor of law at the University of Miami，is not so sure.He believes that arbitrators have not got the message that the policy was meant to apply only to the clearest cases of abuse.The result is a procedure biased in favor of the trademark holder，which，Mr.Froomkin argues，damages the consumer’s right to use the Internet for purposes other than capitalismsuch as free speech，posting pictures of your children，or parodyparody.
He cites the example of Barcelona.com，which lost its name to Barcelona’s city council even though its site was used to post information about the city.Dan Parisi crops up again：he got into trouble when he registered names of large corporations followed by “sucks”—as in “microsoftsucks.com”and “walmartsuckscom”.Arbitrators were not amused，ruling that unwaryunwary consumers might confuse these sites with the trademark holders’own.
Mr.Froomkin believes that these are examples of ICANN’s policy being poorly applied.MrMcLaughlin points out that complainantscomplainant can still take their case to court if they lose.
How the problem will be affected by ICANN’s decision to introduce an extra set of top level domains （TLDs）in addition tocom，net and org remains to be seen.Francis Gurry，director of WIPO，says that the extra TLDs may lessen the pressure on the most precious domaindomain of all—com.He admits，though，that companies may feel compelled to register asregister as many of the new domains as possible to protect their brand.
Which leads Mr.Froomkin to argue that the introduction of a limited number of extra TLDs will simply exacerbateexacerbate the problem of shortage economics that provides the incentive to cybersquat in the first place.The assumption will be that the extra TLDs will be the only new ones，and the consequent rush to register will drive prices up and make cybersquatting an even more profitable pastime.If，on the other hand，there were an unlimited supply of TLDs—new ones every year，perhaps—it would be virtually impossible to corner the market.This means that the price of TLDs would also drop，sending the cybersquatters in search of a more lucrativelucrative profession.
域名之争
美国歌星麦当娜的忠实追随者们如果最近上过www．madonnacom这个网站的话，肯定大吃一惊。他们会发现这是一个黄色站点，上面并没有她与幼子的照片。麦当娜已向日内瓦的国际知识产权组织对该网站的所有者丹·帕里斯进行投诉。国际知识产权组织已经委派一名仲裁官员处理此事，预计不久将会作出裁定。
这是最近发生的又一起域名之争。域名注册者被指控使用名人名字抢注域名，借以向域名的正当拥有者索取巨额金钱。由于现行法律中并没有相关的条款，负责因特网域名分配的技术组织（ICANN）建立了一套程序处理此类问题。然而，认定并处理此类问题并非易事。ICANN创建新域名的决定也正在实施中，但这或许使问题更糟。
域名不像商标那样难以获得，因为它的分配遵循“先注册，先拥有”的原则。所以一家公司的商标成为另一家公司的域名的事常有发生。新的争议处理程序出台之后的七个月中，作为有权委派仲裁官员的四家组织之一的国际知识产权组织受理的案件持续增长。一位女演员，朱丽叶·罗伯特，一位作家，珍奈特·温特逊，以及爱尔兰总理，伯蒂·艾亨都已通过ICANN的新的裁定程序成功地得到了被偷走的域名。
ICANN使用三条标准来测定此类争议是否真正具有侵占他人域名的性质：首先要看被注域名是否与侵权者的名字相同或相似，以致于引起混淆；其次，域名持有者是否对该域名有合理的兴趣；最后，域名持有者是否有恶意注册的嫌疑。斯汀是英国的一位摇滚歌手，他在同其对手的争议中败下阵来，因为后者几年中一直使用斯汀作为在线游戏中的别名。
斯汀的失利只是个别情况。在WIPO所受理的案件中有83％的案件作出了有利于商标持有人的判决。ICANN的安得鲁·迈克劳林声称这一数字不足为奇，它只是证明了ICANN所制定的政策正如人们预期的那样发挥作用。
迈阿密大学的法学教授迈克·弗路姆肯对此则不以为然。他认为仲裁者忽视了一个问题，即只有明确认定侵权事实的案件才可以适用该政策，否则裁定结果会有利于名称所有人，有违公平原则。而消费者不以获利为目的的使用互联网的权利，如自由言论，张贴孩子的照片或模仿等也会受到侵害。
他举出的例证包括Barcelonacom。后者是一个用于发布巴塞罗那市新闻的网站，但还是输给了该市的市议会。还有丹·帕里斯的另一个例子。他注册了一些在大公司后面加上“sucks”的域名，例如microsoftsuckscom和walmartsuckscom。仲裁者们并不欣赏他的幽默，因为他们认为消费者或许会把它们误认为这些大公司自己的网站。
弗路姆肯认为上述例证说明ICANN的政策没有得到很好的实施。迈克劳林则指出如果败诉当事人可以向法庭提起诉讼。
ICANN已决定在com，net和org之外起用另外一套一级域名，但其对解决域名争议的作用如何，我们只能拭目以待。国际知识产权组织的主任弗朗西斯·加利指出增加一套一级域名或许可以减轻最为稀缺的．com域名的压力，但他也承认，公司为了保护他们的品牌也会不得不注册尽量多的新域名。
弗路姆肯却由此得出不同的结论。他认为域名抢注的根源在于短缺经济使抢注者有利可图，而有限的域名资源会使域名抢夺更加激烈。假使这是最后一批新增域名，则激烈的域名抢注浪潮会使域名价格更为高涨，从而也使域名抢注更加有利可图。但是，如果没有一级域名的限制，比如，每一年都有新的推出，就不会再出现垄断市场的情况。域名价格随之下降，而抢注者也会去寻找利润更为丰厚的职业。
If Microsoft Built Cars
At a computer expoexpo ，Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated：“If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has，we would all be driving twentyfive dollar cars that got 1，000miles to the gallon.”
