AFMA loses case. Read statement of Andy Hasse.
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING AND FREE SPEECH
 |
||||
|
Watch out for the Reverse Domain Name Hijacker: the fat-cat corporation that attempts to intimidate small businesses and individuals into giving up their Internet Domain Names. They've got the money, they've got the attorneys, and they don't care about you. (And thanks
to a New International Law, they don't have to heed the U.S. Constitution!) |
||||
|
|
||||
The Domain Name Dispute Policy specifies 20 calendar days for a Response, but WIPO first decided that when I received an email version of a part of the 5-inch thick Complaint, that was the official Date of Receipt. Later WIPO revised the deadline to 20 days.
20 calendar days to defend a domain name I've owned and used for 6 years. 20 days to refute and gather evidence that supports my claim. 20 days before you lose a domain and an property that is conservatively worth about $75,000.
20 days to defend my right to use a Domain Name and Internet Property for which I have trademark rights!.
First of all, the AFMA, needs to be singled out and identified as a corporation that is taking unfair advantage of the Domain Name Dispute Policy. They are "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" a domain name. Secondly, because domain name rights directly affect our Free Speech, we must act now, to understand what is going on, and to force a review of the new International control over our ONLY way to speak online: using a domain name.
There are two petitions on this site. You are encouraged to read and sign one or both of them.
Please also take some time to read over all the material on this site. Much of the information here is relevant to your present and future use of the Internet. Perhaps you'll also sign up for our newsletter (you can easily unsubscribe in the future, and your email will not be shared). Thank you for your participation and concern.
Send this page to a friend
This
site documents
a fight for Free Speech versus Corporate Greed. The story is of a small
business owner who registered and has been using an Internet domain name
for almost six years. A large corporation, who has used their own domain
name, for several years, decides that they want to add anther domain name
to the dozen or so they have. So they try to intimidate a small business
owner out of his domain name. They send a typical threatening "cease
and desist" letter, but do not follow-up in the U.S. Courts, but
rather use another method, a "Complaint" with WIPO, an arbiter,
or "judge" of domain name disputes.
WIPO, the "World Intellectual Property Organization", is one
of four arbitration organizations who have been selected by ICANN (the
Internet Corporation for the Assignment of Names and Numbers) to decide
who has the right to use a domain name. This is a new event in the battle
to control domain names, and thus Free Speech online.
Domain
Names = Free Speech
You need a domain name to "speak" online. Some places give you
a free website, but they limit what you can say on that domain name, e.g.
Yahoo.com, and others. In the United States, we Citizens are protected
by the First Amendment, and other legislation with respect to what we
say and do offline. However, many of our protections have been taken away
online, due to a new Domain Name Dispute Policy written by ICANN, which
is essentially a law, known as the UDRP (The Uniform Domain Name Resolution
Policy). This is because the UDRP ignores our specific Free Speech and
Due Process Rights online.
This website will address both this particular case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (which is typically when a large coporation tries to bully an individual or small business into giving them a domain name) and the issue of Domain Names being as the basis for Free Speech on the Internet.You are encouraged to do your own research.
Background
on the Dispute.
The American Film Marketing Association,
the "AFMA", is a large corporation that handles about a billion
dollars in product. In late January 2001, the AFMA sent a cease and desist
letter to me, Andy
Hasse, owner of AFM.COM, and consulting company director. The AFMA
said in their letter that AFM.COM was
infringing upon their trademarks and that I should therefore give them
the name.I refused and responded politely. See the "Timeline"
for more detail.
The American Film Marketing Association then put together a five-inch
thick "Complaint" and sent it to WIPO, the World Intellectual
Property Organization. (It's interesting to note that the AFMA, has been
consulting with WIPO for a few years, specifically regarding the Domain
Dispute Policy and other legal issues, thus there might be a conflict
of interest).