homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.188.59
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

    
US Judge Orders Hundreds of Sites Be Removed From Google, Bing, etc.
engine




msg:4392473
 2:27 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

US Judge Orders Hundreds of Sites Be Removed From Google, Bing, etc. [arstechnica.com]
After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites"—explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google—to "de-index" the domain names and to remove them from any search results.

The case has been a remarkable one. Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common. When Chanel finds more names, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for more seizures. (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)


 

Rlilly




msg:4392482
 2:44 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

This is some good "legal" thoughts on this decision: [blog.ericgoldman.org...]

Rugles




msg:4392505
 3:29 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

While I dont sympathize with the counterfeiters, I don't like the idea of courts micro-managing the SERPS.

It strikes me as a dangerous thing.

travelin cat




msg:4392521
 4:08 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's not "micro-managing". It's called doing the right thing. These counterfeiters are blood suckers that should be prosecuted and have every penny they have made off of the owners of the trademarks/copyrights taken from them.

Rugles




msg:4392527
 4:18 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Well, we will see where this leads.

greenleaves




msg:4392530
 4:28 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's not "micro-managing". It's called doing the right thing. These counterfeiters are blood suckers that should be prosecuted and have every penny they have made off of the owners of the trademarks/copyrights taken from them.


Which is why you support closing down a business without providing due process? (i.e. your right to contest)

JoaoJose




msg:4392543
 4:33 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Does this mean Chanel can seize ebay? :-)

tangor




msg:4392550
 4:40 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

What I find troubling is the Chanel folks are surfing sites and making lists, without actually obtaining product from each... they sample a few (order product) and damn the rest. That said, I, too, think all infringers should be taken to task.

I didn't see anything in the two reports I read where any of the site holders were fined or faced a judge... just that their domains were seized. The judge may have overreached in demanding the search engines, facebook and twitter, too, delist and remove the seized sites from their indexes. As yet none of the SEs have complied. Some of the seizures were for sites in non-USA countries and, at present, none of those sites have been shut down. Perhaps a higher court will get involved. One of those wait and see kind of things.

Rlilly




msg:4392621
 7:05 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

@travelin cat This means that a judge can order the delisting of your site, shut down your business, without you even aware there WAS legal procedures against you? You actually like this broad power given to judges?

So because a site might say: "We sell HP compatible inkjet cartridges", some judge might not like that, think that it is infringement and get the site taken off the web?

There has to be a better way to deal with counterfeiters, this is not it. This is dangerous.

mhansen




msg:4392640
 7:55 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Kinda touches home for me... I have a domain that starts with the word "fake..." then a popular brand name that also happens to be a general word used in conversation, with a completely different meaning. Like.. "shirts".

I used the site to discuss a completely unrelated topic, but clothing products related to overall topic did eventually come up in the content. When clothing was the topic of the page, adsense propagated ads from the related-brands line of products... and they didn't like it. In their opinion, I was promoting the fake versions of their real products, when in effect, the site had nothing to do with their products at all!

2+ years ago, the branded product maker demanded that I turn over the domain, even though it was their idea to put a new meaning on the common word, I refused... and still own it today.

It's one of those things that I just wait for the shoe to drop on so to speak. We lost a 10+ year old domain to the "O" company a couple years ago also... because it had the word "overstock" in the domain name and had a commerce site selling wholesale products. Our small 3 man shop was no competition for their lawyers, and it was easier to re-brand than to spend endless dollars fighting it. (thats when you realize the power of a mailing list)

MH

jecasc




msg:4392650
 8:11 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

This is not the first time something like this happens. Usually this is followed by several thousands of websites that get taken down by mistake.

Like in this case earlier this year:

US government mistakenly shuts down 84,000 websites

[techspot.com...]

loner




msg:4392730
 11:58 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Scary? Yes. Did it solve this particular problem? Yes.

davezan




msg:4392922
 2:03 pm on Dec 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I could be wrong, but I don't see how Facebook et al can comply with that court decision if none of them are in its jurisdiction. Not unless either: a) they choose to follow it, or b) an order from a higher court reaching into their respective locations is made.

David

frontpage




msg:4393124
 8:42 pm on Dec 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.


So much for due process.

Judge Kent Dawson


appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton on April 6, 2000,

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved