<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Eric Goldman &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Eric Goldman on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-10-08T08:14:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> Email Ad Network Isn't Liable for Spam: Ferron v. Echostar (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[John Ferron is one of several "repeat" plaintiffs around the country suing over unsolicited email (perhaps not coincidentally, he's also an attorney). In this case, Ferron sued a variety of defendants associated with unsolicited email promoting dish satellite offerings for violations of Ohio's consumer protection law and the Electronic Mail Advertising Act (EMAA). <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-10-08T08:14:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Delayed Enforcement Blocks Domain Name Lawsuit: Southern Grouts v. 3M (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm often baffled by lawsuits over domain names and keywords because they just don't seem to make any economic sense. This lawsuit is especially perplexing given the plaintiff's delays and the seeming impossibility of the plaintiff reaching a profitable outcome, even if it won in court. What was the plaintiff thinking? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-09-29T13:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> June Court Decision Detrimental to Domaining Practices (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a June court ruling, domainer Navigation Catalyst and registrar Basic Fusion lost a cybersquatting lawsuit to Verizon... This is an extremely interesting and potentially precedent-setting case regarding domaining and domain name tasting. The court condemns both practices, leading to a preliminary injunction against the domainer and its registrar based on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). As far as I can recall, this is the first time that a domainer has lost an ACPA lawsuit in court, and it provides an important data point confirming that domaining can be cybersquatting (a previously unresolved issue)... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-02T14:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> CAN-SPAM Defendant Awarded $111k in Fees/Costs: Gordon v. Virtumundo (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/070806_can_spam_act_gordon_virtumundo</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/070806_can_spam_act_gordon_virtumundo</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I believe this ruling represents the first time that a CAN-SPAM plaintiff has been ordered to pay attorneys' fees and costs to a defendant. As a result, it's a leading example that courts can and do grow tired of bogus anti-marketing lawsuits, and perhaps it will serve as an expensive warning to CAN-SPAM plaintiffs to ensure the merits of their lawsuit. Gordon is an uber anti-spam plaintiff, leading countless CAN-SPAM lawsuits. As the court describes, Gordon runs a "spam business"--basically, a for-profit plaintiff litigation shop to go after spammers (the court also calls it a "litigation factory")... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/070806_can_spam_act_gordon_virtumundo">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-08-06T15:44:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google Sued in Domainer Lawsuit: Vulcan Golf v. Google (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_domainer_lawsuit_vulcan_golf</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_domainer_lawsuit_vulcan_golf</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Domainer litigation is heating up, and this lawsuit may be the most ambitious anti-domainer lawsuit to date. First, it is a putative class action lawsuit. Second, in addition to naming four leading domainer firms, the plaintiffs provocatively go after Google for providing ads to domainer sites. I believe this is the first lawsuit against Google for its domainer relationships. The complaint itself is a 121 page, 638 paragraph (with one paragraph enumerating 47 defined terms), 4.3MB behemoth alleging trademark infringement and dilution, ACPA violations, RICO and other claims. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_domainer_lawsuit_vulcan_golf">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-27T20:36:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Domain Names Can't Be Trespassed: Utube.com v. YouTube (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/utube_youtube_domain_names_case</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/utube_youtube_domain_names_case</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Boy, this case got a lot of attention when it was first filed (which isn't surprising; YouTube lawsuits usually do). You may remember the story: the plaintiff is a dealer of used tube mills, used pipe mills and used pollforming machines. The plaintiff operated a website at utube.com. As you might expect, like most other industrial B2B vendors' websites, utube.com had a small but targeted audience. With the phenomenal and quick rise in popularity of YouTube, a lot of web users mistyped youtube.com and entered utube.com instead, causing utube.com to suddenly experience disproportionate popularity. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, few of these visitors were interested in pollforming machines... The plaintiff sued YouTube for trademark infringement... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/utube_youtube_domain_names_case">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-12T12:10:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google Sued for Trademark Infringement Based on Third-Level Subdomain (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_for_trademark_infringement_on_third_level_subdomain</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_for_trademark_infringement_on_third_level_subdomain</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's no surprise that Google has been sued again for trademark infringement, but the basis of this lawsuit <em>is</em> surprising. Rather than another lawsuit over the sale of trademarked keywords to deliver ads (along the lines of the GEICO, American Blinds, Rescuecom and JTH Tax cases, or the dozens of international lawsuits), this lawsuit is based on a Blogspot blog URL. Because of its comparative novelty, this lawsuit raises some complex and unsettled legal issues. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_for_trademark_infringement_on_third_level_subdomain">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-12-30T09:19:56-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Does Online Privacy 'Really' Matter? 'No' According to Consumers (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/does_online_privacy_really_matter_no_according_to_consumers</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/does_online_privacy_really_matter_no_according_to_consumers</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In introducing yet another online privacy bill, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) claimed that "privacy fears are stifling the development and expansion of the Internet as an engine of economic growth." Certainly, surveys consistently show that consumers express concern about Internet privacy. But what do these surveys really prove? If consumers are really concerned about their online privacy, their behavior doesn't show it. Here's why... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/does_online_privacy_really_matter_no_according_to_consumers">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2003-09-12T08:30:05-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>