Week 2 Writing Assignment
Cyber-squatting is an issue that can affect businesses and famous people. Read case 17.3 in your text. Identify another case dealing with cyber-squatting or a domain name dispute in the last two years. Answer the questions below.
- Compare and contrast the facts in both cases.
- How was the Anti Cyber-squatting Consumer Protection Act applied in these cases?
- Present an argument to support a person who purchased a domain name years before the name became famous. Should they be found guilty of cyber-squatting?
- Present an ethical argument for both parties in these cases.
Week 2 Writing Assignment
Cyber-squatting is an issue that can affect businesses and famous people.
Define Cybersquatting/intro to cases
The term cybersquatting mainly refers to an unauthorized registration to use the Internet likely to be a domain with identical or same trademarks, while giving out services, company names or any personal names. Thus, Cybersquatting is mainly recognized as the registrants which is obtained while using the domain that has bad faith or an intent related to profit from goodwill under the actual trademark to be the owner. Thus, both the Federal government as well as the Internet Corporation is Assigned as the names and number which has been undertaken by the cation to act like protection given to the owners of trademarks as well as the business which is measured against cybersquatting abuse. Perhaps, this is confirmed that the world has to face severe revolution, as a result, this has been bringing forth the idea on the requirement under the new rules and its regulations. Comparative study on this note mainly focuses on the ideals that states that cybersquatting is someone who are actually registered within the internet domain under the names of internet facilities to be given to famous people or any companies who can hold on with the hostage who are actually making a further demand for ransom payments from the organization or an individual (Shenggao et al. 2018).
Thus, for this reason, cybersquatting plays a vital role developed under the Consumer Protection Act, as it is passed in order to rescue from all the different sorts of digital or technologically developed insights so that people can be rescued from the Criminal act along with its criminal mentality. This is hampering most of the people, while most of the famous personalities have been facing significant issues due to this, as this has been acting like a path to thrive out in details about the relevancy on what the person’s name is or the person belongs to which organization. Apart from this, it is also focused on the domain, as it is registered for a following bad faith. Thus, in this case, a case name is eventually involved in the Yankees of New York, while in this case, which involved an animating studio, which is named Dream Works with all sorts of great examples and can placed to be a part of an example of ACPA works.
How was the Anti Cyber-squatting Consumer Protection Act applied in these cases:
Anti-Cyber-squatting Consumer Protection Act applied in these cases:
The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1999 in an attempt to prevent cyber-squatters from registeringto Internet domain under names that contains a trademark for a proposal in order sell that domain under the name to get back to a particular trademark owner. Yankees from New York is considered to be one of the fmost amous professional sports since the Revolution taken place in history. They were considered to be a revolutionary team because they have been playing so sportingly that they are nowadays realised to get numerous championships, considered to participating in the hall to get the fame of the players, as well as they have been playing for one of the busiest cities in the world.
Thus, when Moniker Online Services Inc., tried to tried to make a good capitalization they certainly got a registration made in the domain of the internet which I “nyyankees.com”. Moreover, this is how the Moniker organization made a pathway related to this domain so that they can link with the people to the third-party commercial websites who sold their tickets for the sporting event and it act like it as merchandised to bear Yankees New York to get a trademark without the permission granted from Yankees (Shenggao et al. 2018). The Internet Corporation was assigned under the name of the founder Moniker, who acted with bad faith and intention to disrupt the business system of Yankees sports based in New York.
Apart from this based on the studies on cybersquatting ream Work Animation is one of the most popular movie productions or can be considered like an animation organization. They have been using items like a symbol, or logos, which can be recognised as pattern around the world. Thus, they are recalled to win a case made against them from the Chinese residents with their surname as Zeng, as they are registered to be undertaken by two individual domains under the name of “orientaldreamworks.com and shanghaidreamworks.com”. Moreover, DreamWorks then filed a complaint against the World Intellectual Property Organisation based on the arbitration and the Meditation to be put at the center of the claiming that Zeng was been Cybersquatted even with the trademark on it. Thus, further investigation made in the future had been found the nature of the cybersquatting which has found out how Zeng had to bring out the details relayed to the sites as well as the intention to sell out the high-ranged data with a high list price to make a further substantial profit. Moreover, the investigatory team could address how Zeng was been registered for guilty related to cybersquatting likewise, they have been ordered about certain turnovers as well as the different sites related to DreamWorks to free its charges.
Hence, it is clear about all the above stories as it is based on the analysis for violating the ACPA. Thus, Monikar Online Services was using something under the domain that had bad faith while this has been providing a direct analysis to learn about the third party to link in details about the specified tickets which was released on the website. Very often the competitors or the individuals who have been selling the products at Yankees were great and, while they can carry out the related analysis based on the ideas to get profit with the permission from New York Yankees. Therefore, Mr. Zeng can violated the ACPA, when he brought out the significance of the website as they have been using the names of similar understanding and their details under the name of DreamWork to make a future profit, with a web domain which was never undertaken by the similarity taken hold of care to list the high ranged price and this can be placed at a point to brought out clerical view about bad faith, which is only used to make money off high price while listing it under the name of the company’s good name. Thus, this domain was simply denoted to be undertaken with the formation of a method, while Moniker was linked with the other websites irrespective of the website or the different forms of advertising to give out the range of profit off the Yankees for good names with yelling out the apparel without any personal permission.
Thus, Zeng here was playing a different game, as can be described from the analysis, which feels us gather an enriched detail to thrive out to reality is to bring an individual to the website, as they can sit on and have been waiting for a particular day out which requires someone who wanted to use it and is required to be charged with money to build a significant profit margin (Harding et al. 2010). Thus, New York City requested to develop a system so that anti-cybersquatting policies can be developed so that they can thrive in detail to understand how big companies or ay famous personalities are getting breached with their monetary functions.
“Present an argument to support a person who purchased a domain name years before the name became famous. Should they be found guilty of committing “cyber-squatting?”
Purchased name years before the name became famous, is it squatting:
Present an ethical argument for both parties in these cases:
Thus, it is true that anyone, anywhere can purchase a website domain, but using it in an illegal form is not just undertaken as the criteria. Thus, if someone, knew about a particular organization, they can build up on growing a potential future with it. Therefore, this is how they could talk theoretically to purchase in detail related to the website with all the different companies who can name it or they shall thrive out or can help an individual from seeing such companies to make a future purchase. Thus, this could mean narrating the financial gain but this would certainly be considered cybersquatting (Cremer, 2012). Therefore, here the domain should have been based on the registered with bad faith as well as with the requirements based on APCA. Moreover, the websites could be brought over the years to be famously related to cybersquatting because of the other requirements of APCA. Moreover, owning the website based on the person or the company shall do nothing to be detrimental to them because of the tasks taking place to understand the means of promotion based on the name of the organization.
Ethical arguments:
Based on the analysis narrated Ethical Relativism and Kantian Ethics is the prime factor. Subsequently, Ethical relativism is based on the theory of holdin up morality relative to the norms of the culture. Therefore, the utilitarian theory is based on providing ample guidance on moral actions. Compared to this, Kantian ethics set forth a universal moral principle that can be applied to all human beings, regardless of their context or any situation (Joseph, 2020). Regardless, based on the situation, ethical relativism is based on undermining the domains with an extended notion of feelings to relate to what is right. Studies on Kantian ethics mainly focus on the case of Moniker and Mr. Zeng, as it mainly related to how they were wrong. On the contrary, this is mainly focused on narrating to focus on the subject matter, to understand or take a stand against those who have done or behaving against any categorical imperativeness. Subsequently, with the analysis and research on the notion which depicted that people actually could not learn about profit based on the website which is actually associated with the Moniker and Mr. Zeng, as they could purchase a web domain with similarity as well as a consistent name which thrives out to make use of the decision which is delivered while they are using a slandered name or they are using it in bad intension along with bad faith.
References
Cheeseman, H. R. (2019). Business law. New York, NY: Pearson.
Cremer, J. (2012, July 26). A Primer in Eminent Domain and Takings Law under the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from http://www.jacobtcremer.com/2012/07/a-primer in-eminent-domain-and-takings.htm
Funk, B. (2020). CPR Perspective: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from http://www.progressivereform.org/perspTakings.cfm
Harding, R., Selman, L., Agupio, G., Dinat, N., Downing, J., Gwyther, L., & Higginson, I. J. (2010). Validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care in Africa: the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8(1), 1-9.
Joseph, T. (2020). Ethics in Organization and Management: The Application of Contemporary Theories of Ethical Decision-Making in Global Conditions. International Journal of Business Strategy and Automation (IJBSA), 1(3), 67-74.
Shenggao, Y. I. N., Huang, F., Renyuan, L. I. U., Yonghua, L. I., & Liuping, W. A. N. G. (2018). Simultaneous Determination of Three Components in Herba Taxilli from Different Host Trees by HPLC. Medicinal Plant, 9(4).
