Is this a patent judge from East Texas?

I glossed over TFA, but it looks like this isn't a patent issue.

/Has a sad.

Not so much. This is essentially an Anton Piller order (named for one of the first cases in which it was used). In trademark infringement cases, where the counterfeiters will likely fold up and disappear if you serve a formal complaint on them, you can instead get an ex parte order from a court allowing you (with police supervision) to seize the infringing goods. Game, set, match? No, then you need to pursue the infringement suit. And if you lose, you have to not only return the goods, but may be liable for any damages, lost profits, etc. for the interim.

So, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the owners of "www.chanelhandbags4cheap.com"

Sorry, dave... Try "www.chanelhandbagsforcheap.com". That redirects to the serving page.

LazarusLong42: Theaetetus: Not so much. This is essentially an Anton Piller order (named for one of the first cases in which it was used). In trademark infringement cases, where the counterfeiters will likely fold up and disappear if you serve a formal complaint on them, you can instead get an ex parte order from a court allowing you (with police supervision) to seize the infringing goods. Game, set, match? No, then you need to pursue the infringement suit. And if you lose, you have to not only return the goods, but may be liable for any damages, lost profits, etc. for the interim.

So, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the owners of "www.chanelhandbags4cheap.com"

And I'm sue if some law abiding internet forum site gets taken down, that once they win their infringement suit, they'll be awarded a complete return if their user base.

Seriously, by the rules here they could shut down Dark and there would be dark all Drew could do about it. Sixmonths later the user base is gone.

Not really. Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on. But since we're dealing with trademarks, that's really easy. "Hey, judge, we own this trademark. Here's a laptop showing their website with our trademark right in the center. We've never licensed it to them."
They really couldn't shut down Fark with a Piller order, even for six months.

For example, here is one of the sites named in the order that is hosted in Germany and hasn't been taken down yet. There's really not much of a chance of them being a law abiding internet forum site. (new window)

Theaetetus: For example, here is one of the sites named in the order that is hosted in Germany and hasn't been taken down yet. There's really not much of a chance of them being a law abiding internet forum site. (new window)

Not when their home page says "Poshmoda.Ws is the home of top replica handbags from the updated catalogues of the best designer labels today. We offer an extensive collection of the highest-quality designer replica handbags, luxury clutches, leather wallets, and trendy travel, sports and tote bags. Our products shall exceed your glam expectations:....

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: For example, here is one of the sites named in the order that is hosted in Germany and hasn't been taken down yet. There's really not much of a chance of them being a law abiding internet forum site. (new window)

Not when their home page says "Poshmoda.Ws is the home of top replica handbags from the updated catalogues of the best designer labels today. We offer an extensive collection of the highest-quality designer replica handbags, luxury clutches, leather wallets, and trendy travel, sports and tote bags. Our products shall exceed your glam expectations:....

Look up secondary confusion in trademark infringement. It doesn't matter that the original consumer knows they're buying a $100 knock off rather than the $2000 original, if others are confused when seeing the consumer carrying the bag. If I see someone with what I believe to be a cheap-looking Chanel bag, I'm going to think Chanel is cheap, common, etc. That the person carrying it knows it's an imposter is irrelevant, if it's going to fool other potential consumers.

Point is that this texas judge has given Chanel power to decide which website lives or dies without having to prove anything.

magus007: Point is that this texas judge has given Chanel power to decide which website lives or dies without having to prove anything.

No:
Theaetetus: Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on.

It should also be noted that Chanel had to put up a bond for damages due to the defendant, if the injunction was issued wrongfully.

Where the hell does TFA get the fact that the judge is from Texas?. The judge, Kent Dawson, is a federal judge in Nevada, and the case was heard in Nevada. Sounds the author is just a farking bigot going out of his way to get some knocks in. He loses any credibility he had left imo when he states that the court turned over control of the internet to Chanel and goes full Godwin.

And seizing/transferring domains in trademark cases is nothing new. The sheer scale on a preliminaryorder is somewhat disturbing, as well the fact the judge ordered several parties who weren't even in the case to 'delist' the domains from their services. Along with the potential of trying to enforce the order internationally, it just sounds like another judge who doesn't know how the internet works.

LazarusLong42: Theaetetus: Not really. Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on.

[citation needed]

Theaetetus: It should also be noted that Chanel had to put up a bond for damages due to the defendant, if the injunction was issued wrongfully.

[citation needed]

I assume you have citations for these assertions?

Better article at ArsTechnica, who are a bit more reputable than TechEye (which I'd never heard of): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-judge-orders-hundre ds-of-sites-de-indexed-from-google-twitter-bing-facebook.ars

The order.

Link

Theaetetus: magus007: Point is that this texas judge has given Chanel power to decide which website lives or dies without having to prove anything.

No:
Theaetetus: Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on.

The issue, as I see it, is that the US government has no business interfering with sites that don't reside in their jurisdiction. I'm not saying they don't have the legal right, as the lobbyists behind this crap have been able to get the law rigged so that they do; rather I'm saying it's repugnant ethically. Takedowns without a chance to defend yourself first seems remarkably anti-american to me.

Fortunately, technological barriers frequently have technological solutions, and it is now fairly trivial to bypass these blocks. Hopefully these workarounds will reach the general public soon.

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: For example, here is one of the sites named in the order that is hosted in Germany and hasn't been taken down yet. There's really not much of a chance of them being a law abiding internet forum site. (new window)

Not when their home page says "Poshmoda.Ws is the home of top replica handbags from the updated catalogues of the best designer labels today. We offer an extensive collection of the highest-quality designer replica handbags, luxury clutches, leather wallets, and trendy travel, sports and tote bags. Our products shall exceed your glam expectations:....

Look up secondary confusion in trademark infringement. It doesn't matter that the original consumer knows they're buying a $100 knock off rather than the $2000 original, if others are confused when seeing the consumer carrying the bag. If I see someone with what I believe to be a cheap-looking Chanel bag, I'm going to think Chanel is cheap, common, etc. That the person carrying it knows it's an imposter is irrelevant, if it's going to fool other potential consumers.

I was agreeing with you. They certainly are not legit because their own website admits, even boasts, that they sell fakes.

LazarusLong42: Theaetetus: Not really. Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on.

[citation needed]

Theaetetus: It should also be noted that Chanel had to put up a bond for damages due to the defendant, if the injunction was issued wrongfully.

[citation needed]

I assume you have citations for these assertions?

Yes... As you note, ArsTechnica has a better article, which then links to the serving notice page, which has pdfs of every filing in the case, including the judge's orders. (new window)
If you go to the complaint and affidavits, you'll see the evidence, and if you go to the order, you'll see the judges rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence, as well as the order forcing Chanel to put up the $20,000 bond.

[Citations provided]

WayToBlue: Theaetetus: magus007: Point is that this texas judge has given Chanel power to decide which website lives or dies without having to prove anything.

No:
Theaetetus: Contrary to what's stated by the article, the trademark owner has to make a strong showing to the judge that there's infringement going on.

The issue, as I see it, is that the US government has no business interfering with sites that don't reside in their jurisdiction.

Except that they're doing business in the US, at which point they fall under US jurisdiction.

I'm not saying they don't have the legal right, as the lobbyists behind this crap have been able to get the law rigged so that they do; rather I'm saying it's repugnant ethically. Takedowns without a chance to defend yourself first seems remarkably anti-american to me.

Not so much - the issue with counterfeiters is that if you serve the complaint, giving them a chance to defend themselves, they just disappear. You go back and find an empty warehouse, and meanwhile, they've popped up somewhere else.
I mean, really, these aren't patent disputes between two legitimate companies. These are people selling counterfeit handbags... they don't have any actual defenses.

Fortunately, technological barriers frequently have technological solutions, and it is now fairly trivial to bypass these blocks. Hopefully these workarounds will reach the general public soon.

Not going to help. The goods can also be seized at customs on entry to the country.

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: For example, here is one of the sites named in the order that is hosted in Germany and hasn't been taken down yet. There's really not much of a chance of them being a law abiding internet forum site. (new window)

Not when their home page says "Poshmoda.Ws is the home of top replica handbags from the updated catalogues of the best designer labels today. We offer an extensive collection of the highest-quality designer replica handbags, luxury clutches, leather wallets, and trendy travel, sports and tote bags. Our products shall exceed your glam expectations:....

Look up secondary confusion in trademark infringement. It doesn't matter that the original consumer knows they're buying a $100 knock off rather than the $2000 original, if others are confused when seeing the consumer carrying the bag. If I see someone with what I believe to be a cheap-looking Chanel bag, I'm going to think Chanel is cheap, common, etc. That the person carrying it knows it's an imposter is irrelevant, if it's going to fool other potential consumers.

I was agreeing with you. They certainly are not legit because their own website admits, even boasts, that they sell fakes.

Fair nuff. :)

Disposable Rob: First they came for www.chanelhandbags4cheap.com, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't selling counterfeit Chanel handbags for bargain basement prices.

Neither are they..The one site listed charges over $200 for the Chinese crap.

LazarusLong42: Aaaand that will teach me not to preview when posting from my phone.

It's not news, it's dark.com...

So if they did that, would this site go totaldark?

Turbo Cojones: Disposable Rob: First they came for www.chanelhandbags4cheap.com, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't selling counterfeit Chanel handbags for bargain basement prices.

Neither are they..The one site listed charges over $200 for the Chinese crap.

As opposed to paying thousands of dollars for the real chinese crap.

Theaetetus

WayToBlue: The issue, as I see it, is that the US government has no business interfering with sites that don't reside in their jurisdiction.

Except that they're doing business in the US, at which point they fall under US jurisdiction.

A great many of these sites aren't selling anything. They are bittorrent sites or the like which host no copyrighted material. These are entirely passive sites, and while IANAL, I see no reasonable way these can fall into US jurisdiction.

...the issue with counterfeiters is that if you serve the complaint, giving them a chance to defend themselves, they just disappear. You go back and find an empty warehouse, and meanwhile, they've popped up somewhere else.
I mean, really, these aren't patent disputes between two legitimate companies. These are people selling counterfeit handbags... they don't have any actual defenses.

Again, I'm not strictly talking about counterfeit goods, but while we're on topic. You're suggestion is that they shouldn't get a chance to defend themselves? That kind of one-sided action doesn't make you the slightest bit nervous? Someone on this thread earlier mentioned that the site said very clearly that it's products were not the real namebrand product. If they are upfront about that and don't use the real company logo I'm not sure how it can even be considered counterfeiting.

Fortunately, technological barriers frequently have technological solutions, and it is now fairly trivial to bypass these blocks. Hopefully these workarounds will reach the general public soon.

Not going to help. The goods can also be seized at customs on entry to the country.

If that were effective they wouldn't be doing this in the first place.

Theaetetus

Upon actually reading TFA I see this is not related to the DHS/ICE domain seizures, so scratch my remarks about bittorrent and not selling things. Regardless, after reading the article, it appears that the burden of proof is essentially nothing.

Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common and apparently the court order allows Chanel to find new names to put on its list and for these to be seized too

They can add names as they like without any additional review, there is no burden of proof here. And how did they get the court order in the first place?

The standard of evidence that Chanel has needed so far has been top of the range. It hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit.

So Chanel investigated ~1% of the sites and according to Chanel's totally unbiased opinion the products are counterfeit. The other 99% are not investigated at all and no impartial review is performed, just here's your court order and feel free to add names as you see fit.

If this is indeed the way the situation went down, it should scare you. The only consolation is that it seems totally unenforceable. Google/Bing have not complied, and of course the non-US domain registrars haven't either.

WayToBlue: Again, I'm not strictly talking about counterfeit goods, but while we're on topic. You're suggestion is that they shouldn't get a chance to defend themselves? That kind of one-sided action doesn't make you the slightest bit nervous?

Not what I said. They get the chance to defend themselves after the seizure, and there's a bond put up by the plaintiff to ensure that they can be compensated if the seizure was in error.

Is it a preemptive strike? Yes. But then, so is a no-knock warrant where people may destroy evidence. It's exactly the same justification, and, with the proper safeguards and judicial oversight* it is constitutional.

Someone on this thread earlier mentioned that the site said very clearly that it's products were not the real namebrand product. If they are upfront about that and don't use the real company logo I'm not sure how it can even be considered counterfeiting.

1) They are using the real company logo.
2) They're upfront about being counterfeiters.
3) Look up trademark secondary confusion. It doesn't matter if the buyer knows they're counterfeit if the buyer is then passing the goods off as legitimate to other consumers.

*judicial oversight is severely lacking in criminal cases. But Piller orders are actually quite rare and the evidentiary bar is much, much higher than is required for a mere warrant. Rather than probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the Plaintiff has to prove that they would win an infringement suit, before they can get the order.

WayToBlue: Regardless, after reading the article, it appears that the burden of proof is essentially nothing.

Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common and apparently the court order allows Chanel to find new names to put on its list and for these to be seized too

They can add names as they like without any additional review, there is no burden of proof here.

Not so. As noted above, the article is incorrect. If you follow the links to the seizure page, you'll see individual requests by Chanel for the additional domains, additional evidence for those domains, and the court order ruling on that additional evidence and adding the names to the order.

So Chanel investigated ~1% of the sites and according to Chanel's totally unbiased opinion the products are counterfeit. The other 99% are not investigated at all and no impartial review is performed, just here's your court order and feel free to add names as you see fit.

You really should read the order, rather than some blog incorrectly ranting about it.

If this is indeed the way the situation went down, it should scare you.

It doesn't. Because I can read.

The only consolation is that it seems totally unenforceable. Google/Bing have not complied, and of course the non-US domain registrars haven't either.

If you READ THE ORDER, you'll also find it's not telling Google or Bing to do anything. It allows the Plaintiff to use Google's Site Management Tools to remove cached entries for the Defendant's domain.

Really, this was a non-story from the start, full of FUD. And you fell for it, in spite of having it explained in depth, with links, through this whole thread. Congratulations?

Theaetetus

WayToBlue: Regardless, after reading the article, it appears that the burden of proof is essentially nothing.

If you follow the links to the seizure page,

...

You really should read the order, rather than some blog incorrectly ranting about it.

...

It doesn't. Because I can read.

...

If you READ THE ORDER

Are you seriously getting more and more worked up about me not reading the order while writing the same post? You know I can't read what you type as you type it and react, right? I CAN'T BELIEVE HE HASN'T READ THE ORDER SINCE I TYPED THAT HE SHOULD THREE SENTENCES AGO!

Really, this was a non-story from the start, full of FUD. And you fell for it, in spite of having it explained in depth, with links, through this whole thread. Congratulations?

Wow, no reason to be a dick.

I read the linked article, which was more time than I really cared to put into this discussion once I realized this wasn't about the DHS/ICE seizures which I actually do care about, and reacted to the article by saying "apparently" and "if this is really what happened" to acknowledge that this was a somewhat hypothetical discussion since I hadn't dug deeply to verify the claims.

On the upside I had some misconceptions about legal jurisdiction of internet sales before this that have been cleared up, so that's good for me.

On the downside, I'm not sure there's any hope for getting all the sand out of your vagina.