Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Nov 2011 21:28 UTC
Legal "After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered 'all Internet search engines' and 'all social media websites' - explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google - to 'de-index' the domain names and to remove them from any search results."
Thread beginning with comment 498463
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: almost, but not quite
by cmchittom on Wed 30th Nov 2011 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE: almost, but not quite"
cmchittom
Member since:
2011-03-18

I don't think that is true. Those sites were seized by ICE, they don't give you a warning. They just take the site.


I didn't say the sites got a warning. The judge granted the ex parte (which means, just one party—Ars's "one-sided") application for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. (Again, I'm not commenting here on whether he had such authority, or if so, whether such authority is a good idea.) At that point, the sites got taken down.

They did not indicate on their site anything other than seizing them immediately. I think that may be why the judge was so careless about the actual law. The sites were already seized so there wasn't much he could do but go along.


Have you ever dealt with judges? They are highly protective of their prerogatives under the law. They don't just "go along" without at the very least a comment.

And anyway, which law, specifically, do you believe the judge was "careless" about?

I think its high time for the world to build a new domain name system that the US has no control over.


I'll certainly agree with that, although I would say "the US or any other political body."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: almost, but not quite
by TechGeek on Wed 30th Nov 2011 15:39 in reply to "RE[2]: almost, but not quite"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

The judge obviously ignored the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

These sites were taken on what in the past has been just the mere hint of wrongdoing, potentially crippling the business. These companies may not even be illegal in their own country. A TRO in this case is totally unjustified. This isn't a murder case. Its a civil case. The continued damage to Chanel was minimal, while the injury to the seized site was severe.

Reply Parent Score: 2