You’re likely to be thinking about a name, commissioning a website and logo to launch it, and considering how you will market it and so on.

Relatively few people think about the legal aspects until they’ve already chosen a name, created a website and maybe even finalised their branding. When they do turn to a lawyer it’s typically to register a trade mark, or perhaps because they wonder whether there’s anything they can do to protect their business concept.

I often ask myself why do people assume lawyers should be approached at the END of a branding or website project?  It’s so strikingly different to what happens in other areas of business life. If you were about to build a house, you’d first contact a lawyer to check that you could buy the plot of land. You wouldn’t simply commission builders and take your chances that you might later secure rights to the land. The risk that someone might pop up to claim better title to the land and throw you off their turf wouldn’t be one most people would willingly entertain. Also, you’d want to know whether other people have lodged planning permission to construct buildings or roads, and whether you have all the rights of access that you need and so on.  You’d know to first sort out all these ownership issues.

Maybe because intangibles are invisible people don’t really understand that there are laws – called intellectual property or IP – which govern their branding projects.  The name you choose is the branding equivalent of your plot land, while other branding elements such as website projects are like the buildings you construct on the land.  Intangibles are every bit as important, if not more important than physical assets of your business.

While the likes of Coca Cola have access to large branding or advertising agencies and highly specialist legal teams when making their branding decisions, small and medium size businesses don’t often have the benefit of timely proactive advice to help them to make good branding choices.

I suggest you take the time to understand the basics of IP law relating to brands so you find a suitably qualified lawyer to help you to achieve a strong brand.  The requirements for powerful intellectual property rights and powerful brands are typically the same.

A specialist IP brand solicitor can advise whether the name is a good one from a legal perspective because they’ll have day to day experience of trade mark registration work, copyright issues and website projects. To get value for money from an IP brand lawyer consult them BEFORE you pick your brand name, logo and tagline or commission your website.  Nothing protects a brand better than a well-chosen name or tagline. This is unfortunately not well understood that it’s the choice that determines how easy or difficult you will find it to protect your brand, and how costly it will be.

Most people assume their branding or internet professionals know all the necessary law relating to brands and websites, but they don’t. That’s not their focus or expertise. Just as you wouldn’t engage architects expecting them to also check that you can own the land on which you intend to build your house, or to know what type of locks you need to install to burglar-proof it, so it’s inappropriate to expect non-lawyers to take care of your IP rights.

The legal issues around brands and names are surprisingly complex.

Branding and internet professionals are primarily thinking about marketing, communications, and visual identity when creating websites or selecting brand elements like names and taglines for you. They may be able to do some rudimentary checks themselves to see whether a proposed name or logo is already registered by someone else, but their focus is on whether the name, tagline, logo or other component would be effective as marketing tools. An IP branding lawyer would know whether it’s a strong name which could support your business plans, as well as what checks are necessary both in the UK and elsewhere if your plans include an international dimension. It’s certainly not as straightforward as searching to see whether the same name or logo is already registered.  Similar names or logos could also pose problems, and there are a host of other considerations which your lawyer is well placed to advise upon.

A real separation exists between the worlds of branding and the law. To get a powerful brand that’s legally effective involves a close collaboration between IP brand lawyers and branding professionals. Currently it is not the norm at the smaller agency end to have such collaborative working. So whether you yourself choose your name or get a branding agency to help you, make sure you don’t end up with a weak brand name. This reduces its value as a long term IP asset.

Some name choices would be the equivalent of building a house which others could regularly break into and steal from.  I’ll explain why by taking the dance called ZUMBA as an example. The business that created this dance has given it a distinctive name and trade marked it in many countries worldwide. This means that anyone wanting to provide ZUMBA classes will need to be accredited by the business. Had the company instead chosen a descriptive name for their dance, such as NEW LATIN DANCE, they probably wouldn’t have a business now. Even if they’d managed to register this name as a trade mark in one country they’d have a tough time registering it in another and ultimately no matter how much money they spent, they would have not be able to prevent other people from offering classes featuring their invented dance.

So, for a business such as ZUMBA it would have been a bad idea to choose a descriptive name.  Instead of collecting revenues, they’d have been spending a fortune on litigation.  So, if you’ve got big plans for your business, don’t leave it till the end of your branding project to consult an IP brand lawyer.  That would reduce the legal input to one of registering and protecting your IP rights, such as they are.  It would be too late to give you effective advice.  Registering your own trade mark and not getting any legal advice at all is an even worse decision because few people manage to properly cover the full scope of their business when they do their own registration.  Your trade mark is important, so consult a specialist brand lawyer.  Contact me at Azrights or look out for my book Legally Branded out in the spring of 2012.

As an entrepreneur you will find it necessary to document many of your own agreements, and should know which ones are too important to draft yourself.

Written agreements are binding documents that define the obligations of the parties involved in a specific project. So it’s advisable if you sell a good or service, to have a clear record of what was actually agreed. Memories fade, and a written record ensures that if disagreements arise later about what was actually intended or agreed, you will have documents to look at to see what was actually intended when you entered into the arrangement.

So, should you buy a legal agreement to use when entering into a new type of arrangement?  In my view this can be dangerous because there is no such thing as a standard template.  The context in which you use a template will differ from the ‘standard’ scenario envisaged in the basic template.  So, you will need to tailor the template to suit your particular transaction.

The terms of your particular deal are more likely to be accurately reflected in your document if you avoid using a ‘standard’ template.  I’ve seen many completely rubbish agreements signed by entrepreneurs who drew comfort from the fact that they were using an existing template.  Unless you have solid familiarity with the template and know how to adapt it to suit your particular transaction it may be better NOT to use legal templates as the starting point when drafting your own agreements .  Instead perhaps use them as a guide as to what to include in your own drafting (subject to the point I make below about avoiding use of any legal terminology, or clauses you don’t understand).

If you have a lawyer create an agreement for you and negotiate and redraft variations of it, you may develop the necessary familiarity with that particular template to reuse it on your own.  But otherwise, in my experience it’s safer to record simple agreements by emailing details of the ‘deal’ and asking the other party to confirm by email that the terms are correct as written in your email. Here are a few elements of written agreements to focus on:

1. Define the scope of work.

2. Indicate exactly what is to be done by whom and within what time frame. Also indicate who determines if the work has been completed satisfactorily.

3. Establish time frames.

4. Indicate how long the agreement lasts and how you will be able to terminate it sooner if for any reason either of you want to do so.  There should be a clear exit strategy.

5. Establish milestones and indicate when payments are to be made and clarify payment arrangements.

6. Focus especially on clarity about money issues: who pays what, when and how. What happens if payment is not made on time?

Be sure to avoid using legal language unless you know really well what those terms mean.  Legal terminology if misused could have unintended consequences on your circumstances.  For example, if you intend to give someone sole rights to distribute something but use the wrong term and give them exclusive rights instead, the legal consequence is that you give the other party all the rights, and deprive yourself of the right to distribute that thing yourself.  Nor should you ever say ‘sole and exclusive’.  This is a tautology.  Each of these words has a very precise legal meaning and consequent impact on the scope of the rights granted.  Be clear whether you mean ‘sole’ or ‘exclusive’. That’s why in my opinion  it’s far better to avoid such pitfalls by using plain English.  Say exactly what you mean in ordinary language you both understand.  Whether you’re agreeing something with clients, vendors, joint venture partners, affiliates, or anyone else for that matter, by ensuring the details are documented in a style and language you both understand, it’s much more likely you’ll end up with an effective written agreement.   

The benefit of recording the terms of your agreements in writing is that you air issues upfront and sort essential details out so you stand a better chance of negotiating your own solution if things don’t work out between you.  Next week I’ll explain what tends to happen when two parties end up in a dispute they can’t resolve without the help of lawyers.

Going through this process of documenting your agreement could very quickly show if you are about to engage in business with someone you shouldn’t be entering into business with.

Obviously, complex agreements (especially where a great deal of money is at stake) should always be drawn up or reviewed by a lawyer. It would be false economy not to consult a lawyer if the transaction concerns a commercially significant issue for your business.  Otherwise you will spend ten times as much ultimately on legal fees.

Arguably unique in the personal computer industry, Apple exercises strict controls over every element of its product line.  This control over both the hardware and software used in its computers, peripherals and devices has enabled the company to ensure a consistent user experience worldwide, and to avoid compatibility issues which have in the past plagued other platforms.

However, this monopoly also means less choice for consumers.  Often, PC users choose to buy their own commodity hardware, put it together and install their operating system of choice.  The motivations for this are varied: some users are searching for bleeding edge performance; others are looking for value; and some simply enjoy the experience of building their own PC.

In the past a number of businesses have established themselves as alternative Mac hardware vendors – typically selling cheaper PCs tailored to be compatible with Apple’s OS X.  A recent example of such a business, fighting Apple in the courts for the right to do so, is Psystar.

Some would argue that Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by preventing other vendors from selling compatible packages that might increase the user base of OS X, sell more copies of the operating system and, possibly, sell more devices developed to integrate with that operating system.  However, Apple differs from companies like Microsoft in that it is arguably a hardware business.  Allowing hardware competitors into the marketplace to increase software sales is not good business sense for the company.  Particularly as the strength of Apple’s brand depends upon its ability to exercise strict controls over the user experience – “It just works”.

So, Apple’s software licence for OS X imposes significant restrictions on licensees.  A recent US ruling highlights the utility of software licences in enabling developers to control how their work is used.  At issue was whether the US first sale doctrine applied such that a purchaser could sell on Apple’s software as they saw fit – think buying a car and selling it on second hand.  The court found, unsurprisingly, that customers are not buying the software itself – they do not own the software after they buy a disc holding a copy of OS X, or download it – they are merely granted a licence to use it subject to a range of restrictions.  The terms of the licence they are granted preclude its use on other hardware.

This is bad news for Psystar but, as Groklaw points out, good news for proponents of Open Source Software.  It affirms the (albeit widely accepted) presumption that a US purchaser of open source software is not entitled by way of the first sale doctrine to resell it on their own terms and thereby circumvent an open source licence.

The patenting of software is one of the most hotly debated issues in the field of intellectual property, and probably the most high profile case in the field is that of Amazon’s ‘1-click’ patent.  The alleged innovation consisted of a way of allowing online shoppers to buy products with a single click.  Instead of entering payment details each time, the Amazon servers identify visitors using a cookie stored on their computer and retrieve the information automatically.  While Amazon secured patent protection for the technique in the United States back in 1999, its efforts to obtain protection internationally provide an interesting illustration of the differing approaches taken to patent protection of software inventions in different jurisdictions.

For example, while the Canadian, US and Australian patent regimes have so far been broadly in favour of crucial elements of Amazon’s patent claims, the European Patent Office appears to be taking a different stance.  A more detailed analysis of the fate of the patent is available here.

There are also differences in the treatment of applications for patent protection of software within Europe, between the European Patent Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office, with the latter being viewed by some as less lenient when it comes to computer implemented inventions.

One comment in the Guardian’s editorial on the subject resounds with this author:

Until the mid-1990s the computer industry – including Microsoft – was opposed to such licensing. This was mainly because the industry was so innovative without the protection of patents, which in any case involved often quite trivial advances in technology that were regarded as a standard part of an engineer’s work.

Every non-trivial piece of software involves a series of technical problems overcome through the innovative application of a developer’s expertise and experience.  Unquantifiable amounts of code are written, and an unfathomable number of problems overcome each day by software engineers worldwide, and the 1-click ‘innovation’ by Amazon is far from the most complex of these.  Much like that of a developer, a lawyer’s work involves using language to communicate complex information, and the analysis of rules and their application under specific circumstances.  If monopoly rights were granted over certain approaches to applying rules to sets of facts, to the structure of contract templates, or to more effective means of communicating information linguistically, I would be concerned that many legal professionals would grind to a halt.

While patents offer an important incentive to innovate, and a just reward to those who develop new technology benefitting society, I worry that if the bar to patent protection is set too low for software then smaller players in the field, who cannot afford to acquire patent portfolios or to pay for licensing agreements, may be forced out of the market altogether.

There is an appetite for more regular tweet ups so, later in this blog, I’ll mention some ideas for a trial run of regular London tweet ups.

@Legalaware who was very quick off the mark reporting the recent #Twegalstweetup provided photos here and here are some I took.

When I arrived at the venue, the Yorkshire Grey, @mikejulietbravo was already sat talking to @IkenCEO who I had the pleasure of meeting at the previous tweet up. It was a lovely sunny evening, and so the pub was fuller than I would have wanted.

A few others were either already there or arrived soon afterwards, including @andrewneligan and @ljanstis.

It was great to renew contact with @LBCWiseCounsel @NewLeafLaw @ClareRodway @DavidAllenGreen @Colmmu @jonathanlea @legaltwo @michaelscutt @Filemot and @GavWard.

Thanks to @conscioussol’s generosity, much needed food was brought out for the party as it had been at the previous tweet up.  It’s surprising how quickly you can feel you know certain people, and @conscioussol is one of those people for me.

Inevitably some tweeps who had said they would be there didn’t show up while others who were not expected did turn up.

Just as I was thinking @Brianinkster might be one of the no shows, he appeared. His presence was very welcome.  Both he and @GavWard manage to be more present at London events than many Londoners.  Does it say something about the Scots sociability I wonder?  Certainly they are both very central figures in the Twitter legal community.

Others I met for the first time were: @Copyrightgirl @danhlawreporter @taxingwork @AjeetMinhasGTB @anyapalmer @BLPLaw @Bureauista @cyberpixie @Ed_Smith_83 @iptax@JaneClemetson @JaneTHoye @jeanyvesgilg @jezhop @kevinpoulter @susansperber @keithhardie @lawbore @LilWizz @netlawmedia @oohsonia @penny05Jones @polinkin @taffydavies @janpotentio

More than 55 Twegals were expected, though I’m not sure if that many came. There were quite a few there who I did not get to meet.  Next time perhaps.

Towards the end of the evening, when there were just a few of us left, a new surge of energy was provided by some late arrivals – @_millymoo, @craigwebster and @ChristianUncut.

If I have overlooked anyone let me know to add your name, and if you’ve written any blog posts about the tweet up I’d like to mention it in this post if you let me know about it.

The results of the feedback from the event are displayed below and may be of interest to the organisers of the North Tweet up @vicmoffatt and @motoringlawyer:

It’s clear that people really do like to know who they’re talking to online, and participating in these networking events facilitates this, and provides a way to increase your transparency, and deepen your relationships.

Clearly people would welcome a dedicated room or space. One problem I foresee with venues where the separate room is tucked away at the top of the building, while the bar is downstairs is this: people go to buy drinks, get engrossed in conversation, and stay downstairs so that eventually half the group end up downstairs, and a tiny number are left in a sparsely filled room upstairs. So, the separate space needs to be of a type that avoids splitting the group.

The next major tweet up is to be organised by @Colmmu and @BLPLaw and is likely to be a super event given the involvement of organisations like the College of Law and Berwin Leighton.  It’s likely to be in the Autumn, possibly in October.  In the meantime, in view of the demand for a regular tweet up I’m going to trial monthly tweet ups for the London area.

However, we won’t host the monthly tweet up in any month when someone else is organising a major legal tweet up, such as the proposed one in October.

This time as we know there is to be a Northern Tweet up in July, we’re also going to avoid July, by hosting the first monthly tweet up in August.

We’ve identified a few venues which could provide a separate room without charge if we unexpectedly get large numbers, while also being suitable if only a small number attend. I’m going to take a look at them before finalising the venue for August. If anyone has a venue to propose then please let me know on here

Also as people so welcome food at these tweet ups but find it difficult when they’re busy networking to go buy food and start tucking in, it may make sense to have a charge to cover the purchase of some food.  To keep things simple, and give people the flexibility they like to have, I suggest everyone throw in a fiver for food when they turn up on the night.

Here is a link for the monthly Tweet up. The hashtag used for these regular monthly events will be #TweetingLegals

Much as I want to agree with Legal Bizzle, I can’t do so given my strong dislike for pedantry.  The word has connotations of officious types who are sticklers for rules and stand by formality when all reason points to more pragmatic solutions.  To me pedantry means pettiness and trivia – arguing over unimportant minutiae.  Which lawyer would be proud to be associated with such negative connotations?

Certainly a good lawyer needs attention to detail but so do many other professionals.  In most areas of life the small stuff, the minute details can and do matter enormously.

So I turned to the dictionary for a definition of pedantry.  According to the Chambers English dictionary, to be a pedant is to “attach too much importance to merely formal matters in scholarship”.  However, none of the examples Legal Bizzle gave in his blog fit this category.  Far from being formal matters, the clauses he mentioned involved serious commercial consequences.  So, I don’t think Legal Bizzle is a pedant, though it mystifies me why he should want to be one.

Being ‘commercial’ is a desirable attribute in a lawyer.  I would argue it involves knowing when NOT to be a pedant.  So I can’t agree that a good lawyer is a pedant.  Far from it.

To pay attention to detail, does not a pedant make.  Pedantry is to lose sight of the importance of a point of detail.  This can happen when a lawyer doesn’t really understand why a precedent is worded in the way it is, and feels safer therefore in defending it against amendment.  But the more experienced a lawyer is, the less likely they are to let imprecision slip through in a clause having serious implications, and will understand when a point is trivial and can be conceded during negotiations.

For example, with “best endeavours” it will depend on what the other party is to achieve, as to whether it is worth arguing whether the contract should impose an obligation on them to use their ‘best’ endeavours or whether ‘reasonable’ endeavours would be adequate.

Any lawyer may start off by trying to get the best deal for their client, and so would propose ‘best’ rather than ‘reasonable’ as a starting point.  But whether it’s then worth arguing the toss is another matter.  As long as the client appreciates that ‘best’ requires more effort than ‘reasonable’, it’s up to the client to decide what’s worth insisting on with the other side.  To argue the point simply because you know that ‘best’ is better than ‘reasonable’ when the client doesn’t think it’s important would indeed be unnecessary pedantry – unless you are doing so on purpose as part of an overall negotiation tactic, to have concessions to trade later.

Legal Bizzle then gives the following clauses as an example of how difference of wording matters:

The supplier shall not in any event be liable for any indirect, special or consequential loss, howsoever arising (including but not limited to loss of anticipated profits)

The supplier shall not in any event be liable for any loss of anticipated profits or for any indirect, special or consequential loss, howsoever arising

Whether to exclude liability ONLY for anticipated profits or for all indirect losses, of which anticipated profits is one small example is clearly not just a formal stickler type of objection.  Most clients would understand that if they are not insured for certain liabilities their business would suffer, and will not regard discussions over such clauses as pedantic.  It’s the very essence of what they use lawyers for – to look after their interests.

However, often contracts include many quite tedious procedural details which don’t really need to be in the agreement at all.  For example, for many SME web development projects the standard web development precedents are overkill in my view.  They run to 15 pages, and among other things, spell out in excruciating detail how acceptance testing should be carried out and notifications of errors sent, and how these will be remedied/retested etc.  Whole pages of standard web development contracts can be cut out and a much briefer document created that just focuses on important risks and essential commercial issues.  Most clients prefer briefer contracts, although longer contracts have their place – usually in larger projects.

Perhaps if as a profession us lawyers could see the wood from the trees more, and focused on creating shorter, clearer precedents that addressed the real risks of transactions, clients would better understand how we add value.  But as long as we continue to have epic contracts that seek to address every single risk, regardless of the amounts at stake, or the commercial realities, we are at risk of seeming to be pedants arguing over unimportant trivia.

For me good lawyering is about being commercial and business like first and foremost. Pedantry has no place.

It is harder for in house lawyers as they may not be able to simply advise their client and ask them to indicate how to  proceed.   Say the issue is, for example, whether to insist on ‘best’ rather than ‘reasonable’ in house lawyers themselves will have to weigh whether it’s worth insisting on this during negotiations as their client is the company, and a company has many stakeholders whose interests need to be borne in mind.

When the immediate  ‘instructing client’ is the sales staff who may regard the lawyer as an obstacle to a signed deal it can be extremely challenging. The sales staff are likely to be cavalier about contract wording, so the lawyer will be operating in difficult conditions.  Maybe Legal Bizzle has to be proud to be a ‘pedant’ because it can feel like pedantry operating in such a scenario.

In terms of relationships,  Twitter is essentially a forum for meeting others.  You have to take that virtual meeting off line if you want to begin to create a real relationship.  As they say on Twitter you need to meet IRL (in real life).

Tweet Up

A Tweet up is a great opportunity to meet other tweeps IRL so is well worth making the effort to attend if it doesn’t clash with your other engagements.

The Lex 2011 Tweetup, organised by Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) and Linda Cheung (@LindaCheungUK), was popular – perhaps the only complaint I have about it would be that there wasn’t enough time to meet all the Twegals that attended!

That is why I volunteered to host the next one, along with Steve Williams (@motoringlawyer).

Steve organised a poll to find out where the next meet should be held.  We found there was popular demand for a June event in London, closely followed by a June event in the North.

So that’s how it’s come about that I am hosting the Tweet up on June 7th in London.  If you haven’t yet given your RSPV on Twtvite here is a link to the Twegals Tweetup

And, look out for more news from Steve on the North Tweet up.

What to Expect

If you want a flavour of what to expect, Brian Inkster’s piece points towards write ups of the Lex 2011 Tweetup by a number of attendees, and includes a host of comments as to what people did and didn’t like.

Reading the comments, I decided it would be impossible to please everyone.  So I’ve gone with what was practicable to achieve, given the constraints of a busy life and limited time in which to organise and chase people.

I had hosted an event at the Yorkshire Grey a few years ago, so decided it would be a good venue.  Unfortunately, things have changed because the management wanted a £500 deposit to hold the function room.  This would be repayable once the pub achieved £500 in food and drink sales.

I provisionally booked the room and set up a donation facility so those attending could donate.  I quickly decided against this when only 2 people donated and it was clear we would not have anywhere near the required deposit by the deadline the pub had given.  So, I let the room go, hoping no-one would book it for a Tuesday night.  Also I remembered the bar area downstairs was a good size.

In the meantime, I emailed a few businesses I happen to know are interested in the legal market to see if they were interested in sponsoring the Tweet up.  I didn’t follow up on these because someone else booked the function room in the meantime.

So when you turn up on the night, expect to buy your own food and drink.  The pub is generally very quiet on a Tuesday evening, and hopefully we should have most of the room to ourselves .

I will be writing a post script afterwards, and if you have comments or suggestions before or after the Tweet up do please leave them here.

Benefits of attending

A Tweet up is a great time saver because you can meet lots of tweeps in one go.

If the people you meet are tweeps you’ve already come across on Twitter all the better, but if not a Tweet up presents opportunities for discovering new tweeps you may want to follow in future.

When you’re not restricted to 140 character conversations, and get to meet face to face you are more likely to identify who you want to spend more time with, perhaps over coffee or lunch.  For any of us who are time starved this is a real boon.

Proposed reforms to data protection law in Europe, including the right to be forgotten online, and changes to laws which affect when cookies may be stored and accessed by websites, are aimed at developing a “comprehensive set of existing and new rules to better cope with privacy risks online”.  However, while entrepreneurship is hailed as a means for economic recovery, over regulation would certainly represent a significant obstacle  to start ups.  While the barriers for entry to the online marketplace have traditionally been very low, and while web based businesses have been relatively free to design their systems and user experiences as they wish, these freedoms are increasingly weighed against the privacy of users.

Regular scandals serve to highlight the importance of more effective safeguards on the use of personal information, for example the loss of address, bank, and national insurance details for 25 million people in 2007; a BP laptop going missing with personal data for thousands of oil spill victims on board last month; and the exposure of names and email addresses following a cyber attack aimed at Epsilon, who provide e-mail services to several high profile businesses.  There is good reason for concern over the safety of information we provide online, but notably, in each of the cases mentioned here, the exposure of personal details was not necessarily attributable to a lack of consent or misuse of data, but to a breach of security.

Freedom to do business online must be balanced with controls on the use of data, especially as the growth of social media sees more and more interaction taking place on the web. However, if the scales are tipped too far one way or the other, regulation may have a severe negative impact on businesses, or the privacy of web users.

Following the increase last year in the maximum fine which can be levied by the ICO from £5000 to £500,000 and calls for the law to provide mechanisms for enforcement against global companies, the growing reach and impact of data protection law means a steadily increasing burden on website operators to obtain consent for the collection of visitor data, to control its use, and to control access to it.  While compliant businesses are likely to develop trust, and while stricter rules may give web users greater peace of mind, it might be argued that education could play a more significant part in preventing breaches of privacy online, and reduce the need for regulation.  It will be interesting to see whether the reforms strike the right balance, and allow entrepreneurship to thrive, or whether they eventually raise the bar to entry such that only larger players have access to the market.

So, even under not extraordinary circumstances, in connection with a piece of online content, there are 6 possible points of contact: the author, their ISP, the domain registrant, the host, the administrator or webmaster, or the website owner.  Nevertheless, actually locating the relevant contact details is not always straightforward.  Websites will not necessarily identify any of these parties, and so sometimes it is necessary to carry out research.

Just as the name and addresses of applicants for trade mark protection are recorded on a publicly available database, the details of domain name registrants are held on publicly accessible WHOIS databases.  For example, you can view the WHOIS records for google.com here.  These records allow interested parties to contact registrants if, for example, they have trouble accessing the website, notice errors, or perhaps have a business proposal related to advertising or the purchase of the domain name. WHOIS records will typically list details for a technical contact – generally your webmaster, an administrative contact – who is the person authorised to deal with issues like renewal of the domain, and the registrant, or ‘owner’ of the domain name.

However, these records also provide a invaluable resource for less scrupulous marketers, who might use the information to send out bulk SPAM email. Therefore many domain name owners choose to use cloaking services, which hide their contact details by replacing them with those of the cloaking service provider.

There are also some circumstances where the identity or location of a web host might be important, for example, where a web site includes defamatory material which a visitor would like to see removed, and although the information may not be readily available, there are some free  tools available to help.

When researching the identity or location of a web host you will need the IP address of the relevant website – this can be obtained here.  It is often possible to identify the hosting provider, or even the operator of the website itself, by querying the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).  Each RIR covers a different geographical region, and they can be searched using the links below:

www.ripe.net/perl/whois [Europe]

www.apnic.net/search [Asia-Pacific]

www.arin.net/whois [America, Africa]

Results of searching using the above tools might include the identity of the web host from whose servers the website you are searching is served, or, for larger companies, the identity of the website operator themselves.  For larger businesses, or companies that comply with legislation requiring disclosure of their contact details, identifying contact details for a website operator is not a difficult task.  However the tools listed above can be very useful when carrying out research on smaller sites, or for details which are not as readily accessible.