Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 February 2014

British businesses fall victim to 'cybersquatters' amid domain name rollout

thetelegraph_344

British businesses fall victim to 'cybersquatters' amid domain name rollout

 

As hundreds of new web suffixes become publicly available, some of Britains top brands are falling victim to 'cybersquatters'

 

This week sees the rollout of hundreds of new generic top-level domain name suffixes, from شبكة. – pronounced dot-shabaka (.web in Arabic) – to .sexy, .technology and .singles.

 

Over the next year, more than 1,000 new top level domains (TLDs) will come online, taking the number well beyond the 22 that are used today, such as .com, .net and .org.

 

This has been hailed as one of the biggest changes to the Internet since its inception.

 

However, new research reveals that some of the UK’s biggest companies are failing to protect their intellectual property, with many domain names relating to British brands already being bought up by third parties.

 

For example, one of the most highly anticipated new extensions is .web, but 80 per cent of the .web domain names relating to the UK’s 50 most valuable brands have been reserved by unknown entities – including HSBC.web, JohnLewis.web and Burberry.web – according to ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse, the centralised repository of validated trademarks.

 

Similarly, third parties have attempted to pre-order 78 per cent of the UK’s top 50 most valuable brands under the .online domain name, 72 per cent under .app, 70 per cent under .shop and 68 per cent under .blog.

 

This practice is known as 'cybersquatting', because the third party is essentially holding the brand's domain name to ransom.

 

“The research shows that some of the UK’s biggest brand names are at risk of IP infringement online as new TLDs are rolled out, with other parties keen to capitalise on the traffic a branded website will generate," said Jan Corstens, project director at the Trademark Clearinghouse.

 

"This not only compromises the reputation of each brand targeted, but also has much larger implications. Looking at the bigger picture, if brands fail to prevent third parties from registering domains relating to their trademarks, the economy as a whole potentially stands to lose millions to grey and black market activities, with consumers inadvertently buying counterfeit products from third parties posing as the brand online”.

 

Further analysis revealed that 54 per cent of these brands are currently not in control of key domain names across major existing domain extensions.

 

The findings include examples of familiar brands from the telecoms, financial services and petroleum industries not owning key domain names such as VirginMedia.info, RBS.biz and Shell.net.

 

Brands in the food grocery space were most notable in this regard, with tesco.co, asda.org, sainsburys.info, morrisons.org all found to be under the control of an unofficial party.

 

Around 70 per cent of the brands studied have already taken legal action against third parties infringing on their IP online.

 

One way for companies to protect their intellectual property is to pre-register domains such as tesco.shop and tesco.web, to prevent cybersquatters from getting their hands on them.

 

However, each of these new domains costs about £10 to £30 a year to own, and the sheer number of new TLDs means that costs will add up.

 

Alternatively, companies can record their trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse.

 

This allows them to secure all the domain names relating to a particular trademark ahead of wider public availability, and be warned if any third party seeks to take control of a domain which matches their IP.

 

It costs £92 to record a trademark for a year, £267 for three years, and £446 for five years.

 

"We believe that in these instances, prevention is better than cure and cheaper than costly litigation associated with domain disputes," said Corstens.

 

(The Telegraph, 5 Wednesday February 2014 The Roman)

 

Saturday, 9 November 2013

Reati bancari a Gorizia, Medeot rinviato a giudizio Offences bank in Gorizia, Medeot indicted

logo

logo_rsf

Reati bancari a Gorizia, Medeot rinviato a giudizio

 

Il presidente del Consorzio industriale e della Confartigianato non ha coinvolto il Cda del credito cooperativo riguardo a fidi in favore delle sue aziende. Rischia sino a tre anni

 

Guai giudiziari per Ariano Medeot.

 

Il presidente del Consorzio industriale di Gorizia, di Confartigianato e dell’Aeroporto spa “Duca d’Aosta”, nonché candidato numero uno (sino a qualche settimana fa) alla presidenza della Camera di commercio, è stato rinviato a giudizio dal tribunale di Gorizia per reati bancari.

 

Gli vengono contestati gli articoli 136 (Obbligazioni degli esponenti bancari) e 137 (Mendacio e falso interno) del testo unico bancario (decreto legislativo 1° settembre 1993, n.385).

 

I fatti risalgono al 2009 quando Medeot era componente del consiglio d’amministrazione della banca di credito cooperativo di Lucinico, Farra e Capriva.

 

L’accusa è di aver ottenuto crediti per le sue aziende artigianali senza aver coinvolto, come avrebbe dovuto fare, il consiglio d’amministrazione.

 

Non solo.

 

Avrebbe anche fornito informazioni distorte sulla situazione economica, finanziaria e patrimoniale delle aziende.

 

La lettura dei due articoli, infatti, non lascia scampo.

 

Il 136 recita: «Chi svolge funzioni di amministrazione, direzione e controllo presso una banca non può contrarre obbligazioni di qualsiasi natura o compiere atti di compravendita, direttamente od indirettamente, con la banca che amministra, dirige e controlla, se non previa deliberazione dell’organo di amministrazione presa all’unanimità e col voto favorevole di tutti i componenti dell’organo di controllo, fermi restando gli obblighi previsti dal Codice civile in materia di interessi degli amministratori e di operazioni con parti correlate».

 

Il 137 è più pesante: «Salvo che il fatto costituisca reato più grave, chi, al fine di ottenere concessioni di crediti per le aziende che amministra o di mutare le condizioni alle quali il credito venne prima concesso, fornisce dolosamente ad una banca notizie o dati falsi sulla costituzione o sulla situazione economica, patrimoniale o finanziaria delle aziende comunque interessate alla concessione del credito, è punito con la reclusione fino a un anno o con la multa sino ad euro 10mila».

 

Per difendersi Ariano Medeot si è affidato all’avvocato Giuseppe Campeis del foro di Udine.

 

Sarà lui a tutelarlo in occasione della prima udienza fissata per febbraio 2014.

 

Era da qualche settimana che circolavano indiscrezioni sul conto di Ariano Medeot ma tutte confuse, a spizzichi e bocconi, anche molto imprecise che non ci avevano permesso di affrontare compiutamente la questione.

 

Ma chiarezza è stata fatta in occasione dell’ultima riunione della giunta camerale integrata.

 

Il presidente della Cciaa Emilio Sgarlata ha letto all’uditorio una missiva inviata dallo stesso Medeot in cui si avvisa l’organo del rinvio a giudizio per un’ipotesi di reato derivata dalla trascorsa attività di membro del Cda della banca di credito cooperativo.

 

In quelle poche righe Medeot dice che la sua coscienza è serena.

 

«Confido sicuramente di riuscire a dimostrare la mia più completa estraneità ai fatti che mi vengono contestati: la delicatezza della situazione comunque esige che vi informi personalmente dell’accaduto».

 

Concetti che Ariano Medeot esprime anche alla nostra testata.

 

Non si sbilancia perché siamo nel bel mezzo del percorso giudiziario.

 

«Dico soltanto che i due articoli che mi vengono contestati sono molto antipatici e molto ampi: per questo, rischiano di dare una visione distorta della vicenda.

 

L’abbaglio - spiega Ariano Medeot - nasce dal fatto che, ricoprendo diversi ruoli all’interno di diverse aziende da me rappresentate ma non amministrate direttamente, si sono verificati dei superi tecnici (sforamenti di credito, ndr) che dovevano essere avallati dal Cda.

 

In questo caso, non essendo io a gestire direttamente le imprese, ero ignaro di quanto stava accadendo.

 

Mi auguro di riuscire a dimostrare che sono estranei ai fatti».

 

Riguardo alle sue (importanti) cariche, Medeot sottolinea di essersi già messo a disposizione.

 

«Alla Confartigianato ho descritto la mia situazione ed ero disponibilissimo a rimettere il mandato ma mi è stato chiesto di restare.

 

Ovviamente, la stessa cosa ho fatto con il Comune di Gorizia per quanto riguarda il Consorzio industriale e la spa dell’aeroporto Duca d’Aosta.

 

Se riterranno opportuno che devo andarmene, lo farò».

 

©RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA

 

(Il Piccolo, Sabato 9 novembre 2013 Il Romano)

 

 

Offences bank in Gorizia, Medeot indicted

 

The President of the Association of Artisans and Industrial consortium did not involve the board of directors of the credit union about trust in favor of his companies. Risks up to three years

 

Legal problems for Ariano Medeot.

 

The President of the Industrial Consortium of Gorizia, Confartigianato Airport and spa "Duca d' Aosta", as well as the number one candidate (up to a few weeks ago) to the presidency of the Chamber of Commerce, has been indicted by the court in Gorizia banking crimes.

 

They are being challenged to Articles 136 (Obligations of bank) and 137 (Internal falsehood and false) of the Consolidated Banking Law (Legislative Decree of 1 September 1993, 385).

 

The facts date back to 2009 when Medeot was a member of the board of directors of the bank credit cooperative Lucinico, Farra and Capriva.

 

He is accused of having obtained credits for its handicraft companies without having involved, as it should have, the board of directors.

 

Not only that.

 

He also provided distorted information on the economic and financial position of the companies.

 

The reading of the two articles, in fact, leaves no escape.

 

The 136 reads: "Who is in charge of administration, management and control of a bank can not undertake obligations of any nature or acts of buying and selling, directly or indirectly, with the bank that administers, manages and controls, without a prior resolution of the 'administrative organ made ​​by consensus and with the favorable vote of all the members of the control, without prejudice to the obligations of the civil Code regarding directors' interests and transactions with related parties."

 

The 137 is heavier : 'Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, who, in order to obtain concessions credits for companies that administer or change the conditions under which the loan was first granted to a bank news willfully provides or the constitution or false data on the economic, equity or financial position of the companies involved, however, the granting of credit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year or a fine of up to EUR 10 thousand."

 

To defend Ariano Medeot has entrusted to the lawyer Giuseppe Campeis hole Udine.

 

He will protect it at the first hearing, scheduled for February 2014.

 

It was a few weeks ago that rumors were circulating on account of Ariano Medeot but all confused, in bits and pieces, also very imprecise we were not allowed to address the issue fully.

 

But clarity was made at the last meeting of the chamber committee integrated.

 

The President of the Chambers of Commerce Emilio Sgarlata audience has read a letter sent by the same Medeot in which alerts the body of the indictment to prosecute derived from the past activity of a member of the board of the credit union.

 

In those few lines Medeot says that his conscience is calm.

 

"I trust surely be able to show my full involvement with the acts that come contested : the delicacy of the situation , however, requires that you inform yourself of what happened."

 

Concepts that Ariano Medeot also expressed to our head.

 

Is cautious because we are in the middle of the judicial process.

 

"I only say that the two articles that I get challenged are very unpleasant and very large : for this reason, are likely to give a distorted view of each other. The blunder - says Ariano Medeot - stems from the fact that a variety of roles within different companies represented by me but not directly administered, you have experienced technical exceed (credit overruns, ed) that had to be endorsed by the Board. In this case, since I am not directly manage the business, I was unaware of what was happening. I hope to be able to prove that they are unrelated to the facts.”

 

With respect to its (important) positions, Medeot emphasizes that he has already provided.

 

"At Confartigianato I described my situation and I was amenable to return the mandate but I was asked to stay. Obviously, the same thing I did with the town of Gorizia with regard to the industrial consortium and the spa airport Duca d' Aosta. If you deem it appropriate that I leave, I will."

 

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/

 

(Il Piccolo, 9 Saturday November 2013 The Roman)

(Edited and Translated: R.S.F. toshiki speed news press, Agence France-Presse, 9 Saturday November 2013 The Roman)

 

Simply, 1 Insider trade, 2 Violence to Bank law.

 

(R.S.F. toshiki speed news press, Agence France-Presse, 10 Sunday November 2013 The Roman)