Have a .com web address? Know the legal risks

[Kym]

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/have-com-web-address-know-legal-risks-ck-113355


Impossible. Nuts. Unbelievable. Those are some of the more polite reactions when I tell people that having a .com domain name for their website is sufficient for them to be subject to US jurisdiction - which allows for nasty stuff like the US government seizing their website or extradition to USA to stand trial over there based on allegations alone.

The bottom line: If you have a .com domain name, or other at-risk domain names like .net, you are subject to US domestic laws and jurisdiction.

This allows the US government to seize your website or even seek your extradition to USA to stand trial, based on allegations of breaking their laws. You’re also at risk from any mistakes and collateral damage.

WOW!!! Something to think about. We have www.ausphotography.net that redirects to www.ausphotography.net.au

[ricktas]

which would be the laws used on kim dotcom in NZ for his megaupload website.

[Kym]

Thinking about this further ... I have (say) www.KymsBusiness.com and I sell UGG boots.

By using .com I could be in trouble... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots#Trademark_disputes

[Xenedis]

As usual, the United States likes to think it owns the planet.

I'd be interested to hear an Australian lawyer's take on this issue.

I wonder if I am subject to extradition to the US if I happen to break an American law whilst wandering the streets of the 51st state (Australia), wearing my Nike sports shoes, or typing a message into my iPhone.

[ameerat42]

BANG!
(The forum-friendly version of SH**T! - with internal OO.)
((The forum-friendly version of something with an internal IT...))

Looks like a new catch-phrase is in order:

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!

.au! .au! .au!

(Aside: What a tangled web!)

[geoffsta]

Reading the last bit was interesting. Pamular Anderson boycotting the *** Boots because they were made from animal skin... I wonder how many leather coats she has, or if she has a leather lounge, or even leather seats in her car.. Some people are so thick it amazes me. Like people who protest about tree felling in Aus, but don't mind getting a check in the mail. Or wiping the dainty little bottoms with toilet tissue. Or like to see there protest in the paper. :umm:

[rodw]

Thinking about this further ... I have (say) www.KymsBusiness.com and I sell UGG boots.

By using .com I could be in trouble... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots#Trademark_disputes

Kim, too late , I can't open your web site :eek::eek:

Glad I host in au and use a .au domain. I used to have redirects in place but have more recently decided to stick with one inline identity. Google Anylitics had a bit to do with this.

Yeh, I know, you said (say) :)

[arthurking83]

As usual, the United States likes to think it owns the planet.

......

LOL!


and with BS tactics like this ...



" ... In his final order, the judge stated that the defendants had provided anecdotal evidence of the term's generic usage, but Deckers countered through submitting declarations from four professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term.[25] Deckers also petitioned the Oxford English Dictionary to change the definition of "ugg" from "a kind of soft sheepskin boot" to a definition that included UGG’s trademark ... "

(from Kym's link).

So they admit that the term UGG is a generic description of a particular type of footwear product and because this doesn't sit well with their insatiable greed they now want to own the English language.


I'm not normally prone to offending any particular culture or race, but these kinds of practises are why there is such as general feeling of contempt towards the US by the rest of the world!

[reaction]

surely if the US really want you, not having a .com probably won't really be any protection anyway :efelant: