WIPO Decides Domain Case In Ashley Madison Leak 25/09/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Following the scandalous July leak of private information about millions of users of the secret dating website Ashley Madison, a website appeared ostensibly offering a place to discuss the leak. And Ashley Madison used intellectual property law to defeat the new site, under a decision of the World Intellectual Property Organization domain dispute procedures announced today. The site was called “isheonashleymadison.com,” registered on 27 July, and was set up by Calico Draconia of Santa Rosa, California. The WIPO Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedures (UDRP) cybersquatting decision, dated 21 September, is available here. The case was filed on 29 July by Avid Dating Life Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, represented by SafeNames Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The parent company, Avid Life Media Inc., is a social entertainment media company which operates five major online dating brands. The Complainant’s most recognized brand is the Ashley Madison Agency Limited, which launched on February 14, 2002, according to the decision. The respondent, “Calico”, argued that she “purchased the Disputed Domain Name so that it would not be available to ‘scammers’. The Respondent’s intention was to use the website at the Disputed Domain Name as a forum for customers of the Complainant who have been affected by the data leak. It was not intended to be a commercial venture.” The panellist mused that “There is no evidence that the Respondent intended to profit from the data leak (e.g. asking Internet users to pay for access to the leaked data). The Panel considers that the registration of a domain name which has a negative connotation does not, of itself, in all cases tarnish the Trade Mark and show bad faith.” But the WIPO panellist found that the site had a pay-per-click option on it which generated revenue, even if not for the respondent – who made no effort to remove it, and that there was no evidence that the site provided a forum for criticism or commentary. As the site was confusingly similar and was not authorised by the trademark holder, it was found in violation and will be turned over to Ashley Madison. Meanwhile, rather dramatically, the isheonashleymadison.com website currently states: My Fellow Internet Citizens, Avid Life Media will be taking possession of this domain in 10 days I apologize if you came here seeking solace or answers, or even just a little compassion. Avid Life Media Inc., the parent company of Ashley Madison, has won this battle. What they will do with this domain I do not know. I have no connectinn to the hacker(s) who call themselves “The Impact Team”. I am not John McAfee and I don’t know if your Partner was or was not on Ashley Madison. I have not seen the hacked data nor do I have access to it. My intention for buying this domain was two-fold. First, to keep it out of the hands of scammers who would prey on you and your uncertainty. Second, so that there would be a place on the internet where people could have an open dialouge about things like online dating sites, privacy, security, etc. Thanks to an over zealous tabloid hack reporter and the parent company of Ashley Madison, I have had to spend my time fighting to keep this domain and trying to keep my personal information off of the internet.The parent company of Ashley Madison has decided that they own all things that even mention those two names together. They have filed a complaint against me and now I have to read through all this leagalease to figure out how to defend myself. Thanks Paula Then the aforementioned tabloid hack, instead of simply emailing me and askng me what’s up, like the WSJ did, decided she would print all of my personal information on the internet and then muse ovwer whether or not I was John McAfee because I commented once on a news story about him. That was quite a stretch Paula shows her really good research skills there I was planning on turning on the privacy feature but it was late and i was tired. Who knew that anyone would notice that fast AND publish it Your journalistic non-integrity is showing Paula dear Now, anyone who has been following the adventures of John McAfee know that he has people out there trying to kill him. By musing about whether or not I was him and also publishing my personal information, Paula might as well have just painted a target on my front door.By the Way, She still has not written a retraction and it was her editors who pulled the page, not her. So if I am able to win my case and am able to keep my domain, I will put up a pretty sight that will be functionsl. If not then oit will go back into the pool of domain names, like it did before and i dought that the Ashley Madison People will simply buy it. Which is what they should have done in the first place. The amusing thing is, if they had written to me and nicely asked for it, i would have given it to them. Instead they want to squash the little bug (me) who dared to think that she could play with the big boys. Calico (as in horse not cat). Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related "WIPO Decides Domain Case In Ashley Madison Leak" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.