Domain Name milik saya akan diregister atau ditrademark oleh orang lain.

sampean salah penafsiran mas, pe-regist domain pertama = pemenang diartikan pemenang sebagai pemilik domain yang pertama. jika nanti dikemudian hari dijadikan sengketa, maka yang mengajukan sengketa tidak bisa mengambil alih domain dari pendaftar domain pertama hanya dengan mengajukan komplain ke icann. jalur hukum bukanlah langkah pertama yang digunakan untuk menyelesaikan masalah, kenyataan yang selama ini terjadi biasanya si pemilik merk membeli domain yang terlebih dulu didaftarkan menggunakan nama merk nya. sekali lagi, karena semua manusia memiliki hak untuk memiliki dan ini dijunjung tinggi bahkan oleh pbb dan dilidungi undang2.

untuk kasusnya mustika-ratu.com itu ada tendensi fraud.
Dalam kasus Mustika-Ratu.com, seorang bernama Chandra Sugiono (ketika itu menjabat Manajer Internasional Marketing di Martina Berto) mendaftarkan nama domain tersebut pada bulan Oktober 1999. Padahal, nama domain itu identik dengan merek Mustika Ratu yang notabene adalah pesaing tempat Chandra bekerja.

hukum bukan ranah saya karena saya bukan orang hukum, tapi hukum tidak selalu dijadikan langkah pertama buat penyelesaian masalah. terlebih kepemilikan domain yang telah didaftarkan orang lain lalu dijadikan merk orang laen dan si pemilik merk secara sah berhak memiliki domain tersebut?

kalo pemilik merk berhak sepenuhnya atas domain yang telah dulu didaftarkan orang lain sebelum merk dipatenkan, dimana letak keadilan? dimana hak2 manusia disetarakan? bukankah nanti seenaknya orang mendaftarkan merk yang mengandung nama domain yang sekarang sudah besar & valuable, ads-id misalnya. apakah bisa kalo sekarang saya mendaftarkan merk ads-id lalu domain ads-id jadi milik saya hanya dengan komplain ke icann?

 

domain emang boleh aja dimiliki semua orang yang berminat tapi kalo masuk ke dot com..bukankah dot com = .com (short for "commerce"), a company that relies largely or exclusively on Internet commerce.
dari _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com
kalo utk personal pake aja dot me atau my.id
jadi gak usah lebay bawa bawa HAM dll

 

nih tak copasin biar jelas bacanya:

Here are the relevant facts and findings:

Complainant DC Labs Inc. is engaged in producing, selling, and distributing hair care products.

Complainant has been in business since 2007 and operates the website at the ovationhair.com domain name.

Complainant owns several U.S. and international trademarks for its OVATION marks, including OVATION. Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,142,800 filed November 10, 2011, registered May 15, 2012).

Complainant uses the OVATION mark at its website to advertise its goods and to indicate to the public that the goods are provided by Complainant. As a consequence of Complainant’s prolific use of the mark, the OVATION name has attained considerable value and goodwill.

Respondent purchased the <ovation.com> domain name on December 24, 2008, and uses the resolving website to allow an Internet entity to operate a “parked domain monetization”.

Respondent has yet to establish a legitimate website at the domain name, yet Respondent wallpapers the website with the registered OVATION marks.

The monetized links allow a visitor to click on the headings at the top of the site, which results in advertisements appearing as additional pages, none of which have any affiliation with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s activities unlawfully encroach upon Complainant’s rights by generating advertising revenue off of the goodwill created by Complainant’s marks. Respondent intentionally attracts Internet traffic to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, in order to increase its revenue.

Further, Respondent had full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OVATION mark, and deliberately chose the mark in order to deceive members of the relevant public

Complainant is a United States corporation that is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of hair care products and has been in business in that field since 2007

Complainant is the owner of the OVATION HAIR mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,142,800 filed November 10, 2011, registered on May 15, 2012).

According to Complainant’s information it commenced using the OVATION marks in commerce in the United States at least as early as September 2007 in connection with the sale and offer for sale of hair care products.

Complainant is the owner the domain name ovationhair.com

Complainant has established common law trademark rights in OVATION HAIR.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 24, 2008.

On the time this decision was issued the disputed domain name was resolving to a web site that disclosed Complainant’s mark.

The site is monetized by pay per click advertisements. The resolving page displays advertisements or links for other hair care companies and products.

Complainant is the owner of the OVATION HAIR mark through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,142,800 filed November 10, 2011 registered on May 15, 2012).

Complainant further claims to own several other well-known U.S. and International trademarks, such as OVATION CELL THERARY and OVATION (“the OVATION marks”).

Previous panels have found that a complainant does not need to own a valid trademark registration in order to demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) if it can establish its rights in the mark through common law rights.

Complainant claims it has been using the OVATION marks in connection with the sale and offer for sale of hair care products since 2007.

Complainant further claims to have exerted significant effort and resources to advertise and promote its goods and Complainant’s advertising expenditures have totaled well over 100 million dollars

The Panel accepts those evidence and the conclusions drawn from it and considers that previous panels have found that complainants can establish common law trademark rights through evidence such as the manner and amount of promotion of goods available under the mark, the extent of complainant’s use of the mark, and a degree of consumer recognition, all of which contribute to the establishment of a secondary meaning in a mark.

The Panel finds that on this basis Complainant has established common law rights in the OVATION marks including the OVATION HAIR mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:

(a) Respondent is using Complainant’s trademark.

(b) Respondent has not monitored the disputed domain name since it was taken down in 2009

(c) Respondent has since then used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that is monetized by pay per click advertisements. The resolving page displays advertisements or links for competing hair care companies and products.

(d) Complainant has no affiliation with Respondent. Because Complainant claims that Respondent was not authorized to register a domain name containing Complainant’s registered mark, and there is no evidence that suggests Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

(e) Further, the advertisements or links displayed in the disputed domain name lead consumers to competing hair care companies and products. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain to provide advertisements and links to site competing for Complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)

Given that Respondent owns numerous domain names it is unlikely that it is not aware of how to control the content of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that despite Respondent’s claims that it at one time used the disputed domain name in connection with its business, the disputed domain name has been used to park a website containing monetized links.

The Panel notes that Respondent has not offered any proof in the form of evidence of his legitimate intent to use the disputed domain name.

All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.

Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.

Although not a conclusive argument, the fact that Respondent owns 107 domain names, according to a reverse WHOIS lookup, might be considered a pattern of Respondent’s history of purchasing domain names and not using them for legitimate business purposes.

However, despite the fact that the Panel has visited some of these domain names and verified that many are currently being used to park websites containing monetized links, it is not well clear whether Respondent’s indeed using the appointed domain names for illegitimate business purposes.

Nevertheless, the Panel finds that Respondent has not monitored the disputed domain name since 2009 and has allowed it to be “parked”.

The Panel also finds that the provision in the registration agreement between Respondent and the domain name’s registrar indicates that the registrant is indeed responsible to determine whether the domain name registration or use infringes on another’s rights, and the registrant is responsible for maintaining the website and the content within it. Previous panels have established that maintaining a parked webpage at a disputed domain name is sufficient to make a finding of the respondent’s bad faith registration and use, regardless of the entity that initiates the parked content

Therefore, in view of Respondent’s negligence in monitoring the disputed domain name as well as the above evidences, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

 

intinya : pertama regist gak jaminan menang terhadap gugatan, dalam kasus ini ..domain yang di regist tahun 2008 bisa diminta paksa oleh pemegang merk yang baru resmi terdaftar 2012
o alah....panjang amat
ni yang ane penasaran
coba agan kasih contoh...dari depan depan ane dah ngoceh deh ampe capek yang regist pertama menang terhadap pemilik merk

 

sampean salah tafsir lagi kan? jadi kalo .com dimiliki individu = dilarang = melanggar hukum?

baca: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com

Although com domains were originally intended to designate commercial entities (others such as government agencies or educational institutions have different top-level domains assigned to them), there has been no restriction on who can register com domains since the mid-1990s. With the commercialization and popularization of the Internet, the com domain was opened to the public and quickly became the most common top-level domain for websites, email, and networking.

saya agak tersinggung kalo dibilang lebay soal HAM, HAM adalah bagian integral dari kajian dalam disiplin ilmu hukum internasional. Negara bahkan Agama yang saya yakini juga menjunjung tinggi soal HAM.

ini forum diskusi, tidak semua orang mempunyai pola pikir yang sama dengan kita, berbeda itu biasa, dewasalah.

 

slaw masbro..ini forum diskusi, ane ama ente jelas berbeda pemikiran..tapi apa ane ngomong kasar sama ente..enggak kan
o ya ente ngasi apa tuh ini yah
baca: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com

Although com domains were originally intended to designate commercial entities
jadi aslinya buat siapa??
trus dot me sama my.id buat siapa donk hehe
tapi ngomong ngomong pertanyaan ane gak dijawab jawab..jawab donk

 

hehehe, sip, lanjut mas.

soal domain .com itu memang pada awalnya dikhususkan untuk tujuan komersial, tapi semenjak pertengahan 1990 siapa saja bisa mendaftarkan domain .com. jadi baca nya jangan setengah2. sumber dari link wikipedia diatas.

domain .me dan my.id itu = Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD ), .me untuk negara montenegro dan .id untuk Indonesia.

 

register trademark itu bayar hakcipta. meliput nama, logo, warna, bentuk, slogan, maskot, register hak cipta lbh unggul daripada register domain.

kl agan yang ngedaftar domain lbh dulu, ya gapapa. kcuali domain agan itu kemudian belakangan diubah dengan meniru persis, warna, bentuk, dan slogan yang uda dihakciptakan. yang kayak gt bs dituntut.

 

Pembahasannya sangat menarik, izin baca2 dan memahaminya dulu yach mastah.

Thanks untuk mastah2 "marketer dan benpinter" atas sharenya.

 

eh ada yg rame dimari... ikit nyimak ah...

 

belum tentu juga, misal kita punya domain i-phone.com, lalu kita park di sedo dan nongol iklan2 yg berhub sama iphone nya apple, penggunaan domain kita bisa dianggap bad faith, dan bisa melanggar juga

 

Pembahasan yang menarik.

Jadi misal dalam contoh kasusnya om ts, domain di beli duluan trus kemudian dijadikan trade mark orang lain, apa om ts cuma punya pilihan untuk menawarkan domain ke pemilik trademark? trus kalau domainnya mau dipake sendiri sama om ts gimana? apakah gak ada win-win solution gitu? hehe.

 

pertanyaan menarik, saya coba jawab lagi deh sebelum tidur

jawaban singkatnya ada. TS sebagai pemilik domain tetap berhak atas kepemilikan domain, jika nanti dikemudian hari nama domainnya dijadikan trademark dan si pemilik domain tidak mau menjual maka pemilik domain biasanya diminta (tapi ini sangat jarang terjadi) / dengan kesadaran pribadi menulis statement atau pernyataan bahwa domain tersebut tidak mempunyai hubungan / berafiliasi dengan suatu produk trademark yang dimaksud. secara etika & hukum ini seharusnya sudah cukup (kayaknya; kalo saya dulu gak ketiduran pas ada mata kuliah etika estetika ) dengan syarat konten domain tersebut tidak ada tendensi fraud dll yang kiranya merugikan si pemegang trademark.

cmiiw

ps: ini harusnya urusannya penjual domain dan orang hukum, kok gak ada yang nongol pada kemana ya?

 

Salah tapi ngeyel
Ngotot tapi ngawur

hxxp://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2013-1838

Baca2 dulu tentang "Reverse domain name hijacking"

hxxp://domainnamewire.com/tag/reverse-domain-name-hijacking/

Asal bukan dengan tujuan "Bad faith", peregister pertama kemungkinan menang juga gede (kalo merek didaftarkan belakangan).

 

memang bad faith. tapi pertanyaannya apakah bisa dituntut??

kebetulan dulu pernah kerja di perusahaan design grafis merangkap kantor hak paten. nanti ane tanyain klausul mengenai penggunaan nama domain ada atau tidak. (sptnya sih tdk ada). tp gak tau kalau ada update perihal klausulnya mengenai uu eletronik.

 

kalo UU ITE = UNDANG-UNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2008 TENTANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK

BAB VI
NAMA DOMAIN, HAK KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL,DAN PERLINDUNGAN HAK PRIBADI

Pasal 23
(1) Setiap penyelenggara negara, Orang, Badan Usaha, dan/atau masyarakat berhak memiliki Nama Domain berdasarkan prinsip pendaftar pertama.
(2) Pemilikan dan penggunaan Nama Domain sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) harus didasarkan pada iktikad baik, tidak melanggar prinsip persaingan usaha secara sehat, dan tidak melanggar hak Orang lain.
(3) Setiap penyelenggara negara, Orang, Badan Usaha, atau masyarakat yang dirugikan karena penggunaan Nama Domain secara tanpa hak oleh Orang lain, berhak mengajukan gugatan pembatalan Nama Domain dimaksud.


Pasal 24
(1) Pengelola Nama Domain adalah Pemerintah dan/atau masyarakat.
(2) Dalam hal terjadi perselisihan pengelolaan Nama Domain oleh masyarakat, Pemerintah berhak mengambil alih sementara pengelolaan Nama Domain yang diperselisihkan.
(3) Pengelola Nama Domain yang berada di luar wilayah Indonesia dan Nama Domain yang diregistrasinya diakui keberadaannya sepanjang tidak bertentangan dengan Peraturan Perundang-undangan.
(4) Ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai pengelolaan Nama Domain sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), ayat (2), dan ayat (3) diatur dengan Peraturan Pemerintah.

nyontek dari hccp://id.wikisource.org/wiki/Undang-Undang_Republik_Indonesia_Nomor_11_Tahun_2008

 

Panjang bener komen2nya, berharap ada yang bikin e-book yang ginian, jadi nubi kyak ane bisa dong