And, in that context, it becomes extremely important to understand whether the registrar in question was primarily working on its own behalf, or that of actual end users.

To cut to the last scene here, I think it’s safe to say, that the larger the registrar, the more likely it is that any “insider trading” would be a very small percentage of their total registrations. In that case, any judge should that such injunction would have ramifications that harm the public.

Therefore, I believe the same judge would view any “irreparable damage” claim in an entirely different light. Instead, I am imagining the judge would lean towards something more akin to the trusteeship imposed on various unions.

The question about the affected registrars is whether they were real registrars or registrars set up to abuse the grace period rules and indulge in trademark infringement (just like those in the .eu landrush).

Currently this is part of what it says in ICANN’s registrar accreditation agreement:

http://icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

1.10 The word “registrar,” when appearing without an initial capital letter, refers to a person or entity that contracts with Registered Name Holders and with a Registry Operator and collects registration data about the Registered Name Holders and submits registration information for entry in the Registry Database.

1.11 “Registrar Services” means services provided by a registrar in connection with a TLD as to which it has an agreement with the TLD’s Registry Operator, and includes contracting with Registered Name Holders, collecting registration data about the Registered Name Holders, and submitting registration information for entry in the Registry Database.

Unless I missed something, there’s nothing there stating that registrars must exist solely to cater to end-users or register domain names for their own purposes. Try to add those kinds of “restrictions” and inevitably someone with differing interests will disagree.

Things could get very interesting Dell decides to move against Snapnames and the other dropcatchers as part of this action - especially if any of the problem domains happened to have been caught by the dropcatchers and then transferred. It is like a ripple effect on a pond. It could really change the domain business if the action succeeds in that it would provide a precedent that would change organised trademark infringement from being simple trademark infringement to counterfeiting.

/FM

Has Belgium Domains LLC actually provided any information as to how many of its clients are affected by this action or is it just an attempt at some spin in order to get favourable coverage?

Am I missing something?

Not a thing, Ron. This is one inherent risk when registering a .com, and there’s no realistic way around it.

Don’t worry, Joseph, I ain’t disagreeing with you at all.

This seems extreme in that it adversely impacts EVERY one of the Registrars clients.

Am I missing something?