Generating sales leads and using them creatively are the basis of an effective, on-going marketing campaign and the key to increasing business revenue. One company,  manages comprehensive lists of potential customers for you to utilize.

This business-to-business company provides access to over 200 million online consumers and offers a variety of resources that will help increase marketing efforts and multiply your sales.

With valuable programs that specialize in lead generation, customer analysis, target marketing, credit information, database enhancement and data processing, it’s easier than ever to tap into the millions of online shoppers and steer them toward your e-store.

As there are plenty of computers connected to the network , it is essential to arbitrate a system that allows to recognize and identify each machine is online. To be able to transmit information from one computer to another there must be an address unique for transferring data . At first the addresses of the computers was through address that functioned as numbers telephone . But since humans are not good at remembering numbers but usually prefer to use names as they are easier to remember, began the emergence of so-called “names rule “born with the task of helping humans in their fight against numbers and identify a directory on the web.

Any person who wishes to be actively on the Internet requires an address, an address that is identifiable from any computer. And it is necessary that each agent has a unique address, which means that names are unambiguous.

Because users of the Internet may have difficulty accessing the addresses or they may even be impossible to access a particular direction without knowing the domain name, is that companies often register with the domain name of their own names or brands with which they are recognized in the market . Therefore, having a domain name known or deductible is vital for companies that want to develop their Internet activity.

Known institutions both commercial and not appear in the Network with the name you used in other areas: EL PAIS (ElPaís.es), TELEFONICA (telefonica.es), ABC (abc.es), TELE 5 (telecinco.es) , CORTE INGLES (elcorteinglés.es), CNN (cnn.com), with which relate to the public that knows. The ability of a company can use a domain name consisting of the company name followed by. Com is important for its ability to successfully market, advertise and sell their products and services . And their loss can mean the ruin of his business.

Legal issues of Internet domain names.
Numerous controversies surrounding this issue have emerged worldwide.
Disputes over the misuse of company names or celebrities known for Internet sites are increasingly numerous in the Center for Mediation and Arbitration of the Organization of the World Property Intellectual, which has been receiving complaints in December 1999 to 172 in May 2000.

After opening in December, increasing the number of cases has been enormous and the only complaint of this month became 28 in January, 70 February 133 March 119 April 172 May. Disputes are analyzing this body come from 53 countries worldwide, demonstrating the nature of the issue internationally, while the highest number of complaints coming from the United States , 299.

Of the 179 cases studied so far, in 147 was the reason the user’s name, so if the company or individual concerned wants to use that name on the Internet should buy the rights to the name.

However, in other cases, such as those relating to requests by individuals to use names of celebrities, like Julia Roberts has ruled in favor of celebrity rights over trademark registered by relying on the laws common.

The rules of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO established that each case must be resolved within 45 days and that the decision can be appealed to a tribunal. To file a complaint with WIPO in the field of counterfeiting domains must prove that you are the owner of the trademark and that the defendant domain name is identical or similar to their own, which has been obtained in bad faith and is being used by another person.

In the U.S. there have been numerous disputes with domain names. Many of them went in the Courts of Justice . Examples:

• Which faced the Avon cosmetics company with Carnett WONG ASSOCIATES avon.com who registered the domain. Avon sued the owner of record claiming the recent “Federal Trademark Dilution Act, the defendant finally paved and there was no judicial pronouncement.
• The domain mtv.com. Adam Curry’s MTV employee (popular channel TV dedicated to the music pop) registered the domain name mtv.com and remained the same. MTV did not show much interest in the domain until Curry stopped working for them. When Curry left MTV sued it before a Federal Court. Eventually the parties reached an amicable settlement.
• That of mcdonalds . com Joshua Quittner, a writer for the magazine WIRED mcdonalds.com registered the domain to demonstrate the problems with the system of allocating domain. Quittner threatened to in the direction a page dedicated to the vegetarian diet if it did not reach an agreement, and at the end McDonalds donated $ 3,500 to purchase computer equipment for schools.

Also in the UK there have been cases. The most important sentence is the case Pitman. A company constituted in 1849 by Sir Issac Pitman had a number of divisions that were breaking up and in 1985 signed an agreement between them by authorizing Pitman Training Pitman to use the name in connection with its business so as not authorizing the use of Pitman for any other business that was not organized practices and courses. Pitman Publishing invited domain registration and pitman.com pitman.co.uk in February 1996. These were known but did not attempt Pitman Publishing effective use of the domain until December 1996. In April of that year, Pitman Publishing attempted to use the domain was supposed to be obtained, and realized that he could not use it and expressed his complaint to the British center that manages domain names. Nominet Uk in April 1997 returned the domain to Pitman Publishing and since then this company is one that has used the name. Pitman Publishing suggested actions courts based on the use of another’s reputation, breach of contract and unfair acts of confusion. Finally, the judge dismissed these actions and declar”o the right to use the name in favor of Pitman Publishing who first sought the registration of the disputed domain name.

In France there are cases of domain disputes as evidenced by the clash of societies SAPES and ICARE. SAPES owns the trademark and registered the domain Atlantel atlantel.fr. Icare domain registered in USA and knowing it atlantel.com the French domain owner sued in a court in Bordeaux in order to leave the atlantel.com domain.

In Spain the best known case is the form OZU. At first five people that created the form ozu.advernet.es residing at the address, later changing ozu.com. This domain name was registered in his name in the United States, one of the partners, while in Spain acrea a society , Advernet responsible for the commercial exploitation of browser and trademarked OZU. Subsequently the separated partners and those who formed the company Advernet created another form in the direction ozu.es. Both sides claim the exclusive right to use the name ozu and have already started legal action.

Private law issues in the united states. The decision in Panavision.
Panavision International LP The applicant is a company whose principal place of performance of the activity is located in Los Angeles, California. Panavision holds a series of marks Panavision and Panaflex federal and used in connection with its activities related to products for the world of film , television and photography .

Dennis Toeppen the defendant is an individual who has multiple pages and holds several other domain names, in particular , has registered the character under the top level domain “com” above those marks, ie panavision.com and Panaflex . com.

The trial is the so-called SUMMARY JUDGEMENT that is appropriate when no genuine issue relevant factual issue. For this type of trial is appropriate not have to prove the existence of relevant facts that are authentic and influential. The judge at the time to justify the appropriateness of such judgments, provides that summary judgments are disapproved in engeneral trademark cases because of the inherent factual nature of most trademark disputes. However it is appropriate when the defendant, as is the case, fails to demonstrate the existence of those facts at issue.

After designating the parties to attend the proceedings , the Setencia covers a brief explanation of the Internet. Then analyzes the domain name system and the purpose for which it is due, noting that its main purpose is to allow Internet users to locate addresses quickly and easily. To argue this statement describes the way in which a user does not know elnobmre domain of the entity with which you wish to contact, you can get that way: through the search engines .

The following statement describes the events that lead to litigation. So in December 1995, recorded in his favor Toeppen mastering panavision.com without finding authorized by the plaintiffs to make use of the mark. Like other companies, Panavision decided to start developing your Internet activity, and when to encourage registration, such as domain name, the mark was registered and which was released in the market, it was discovered that Toeppen panavision.com holder. So at first looked like severed their ability to use the trademark on the Internet.

Toeppen Panavision notified that he wished to use the domain name and this panavision.com demanded $ 13,000 to change it. Panavision refused the offer to Toeppen raised and who also registered as a domain name then another mark of Panavision, panaflex.com. The only thing that contains that address is the word hello. Netwok Solution Inc. suspended the use of domains were borne pending sentencing.

The performance of Toeppen undeniable evidence bad faith. The defendant is people with the same character, in other cases in which it has registered domain names that coincide with foreign brands, a fact not denied by the defendant. In addition Toeppen owns many domain names related to brands such as aircanada.com, deltaairlines.com, yakeestadium.com, australiaopen.com

At this point, the decision echoes a Panavision argument, important for the prosperity of the shares are exercised, holding that the business is registered brands Toeppen then require their owners money by giving up the names that have registered.

The actions exerted by the plaintiffs are:

• trademark dilution, both federal and state level: the dilution of the brand is the loss of the ability of a well-known mark to identify and distinguish goods and services regardless of the existence or absence of competition among well-known mark holders and other parties or the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.
• Infringement of trade mark rights.
• Unfair competition at both the state and federal
• Parasitic behavior likely economic benefit both intentional and negligent
• Breach of contract.

The court decision states that “as a result of the current state of technology on the Internet, Toeppen was able not only to lose the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services, but to eliminate the capacity of the Panavision mark for identify and distinguish their products online. The Court finds that the conduct of Toeppen which prevented Panavision use its brand in a major new economic environment has diluted Panavision mark in terms of the statute. “

As regards the violation of trademark rights and unfair competition, the ruling states that in considering the action above, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on these points. For both the annotated resolution does not address these issues. The other reasons are equally desentimados, although the reasoning is worth to mention making the plaintiffs to believe that the conduct of Toeppen supposed breach of contract.

In fact, the argument of the plaintiffs was that the defendant had breached the contract linking him to the NSI (the entity that assigns domain names) since the rules for allocating domain names, prohibit the registration of a name which violates rights of intellectual property of others, so that in the contract she was a third party beneficiary, as the owner of the mark which coincided with the domain name.

But Judge Pregerson held that the clause was not a stipulation for a third party, and that the purpose of the NSI was not to grant rights to another party but to avoid legal problems, namely that this provision was to protect the NSI and not a third as Panavision.

So could not accuse Toeppen breach of contract by using the figure of provision for third but certainly could be accused of failure to NSI if we consider these effects, the rules published by the NSI are, at best, an offer contract, and therefore is bound to execute the contract for providing the service for registration and maintenance of the domain name if, as is the case, the requirements of these standards.

Finally, to be estimated first action ruling, the court sentenced Dennis Toeppen to cease using the plaintiff marks Panavision and Panaflex in connection with any commercial activity, and to make the action undertaken to transfer the disputed domain by Panavision.

In Argentina there are four judgments in the Federal Court in Civil and Commercial Argentina relating to the registration of Internet domain names were given in our country. Three of them are referred to the ” piracy “of domains, and quite common practice is to record for himself as a domain name or trademark of a third party, usually a company with prestige and visibility in the market. The fourth sentence refers to the absolute prohibitions registration agency sets the domain of NIC . AR and its challenge in court.

Given that all judgments are interlocutory decisions, the substantive question is still open.

2. The judgments in terms of piracy domains.

The judgments on piracy are a relapse into cars ICE CREAM Freddo SA C / SPOT NETWORK S / NAME MISAPPROPRIATION “Freddo” FOR INTERNET, interlocutory decision dated 26 November 1997 the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 7 Sec 13 (hereinafter Case Freddo) interlocutory sentence of first instance handed down in cars CAMUZZI DE ARGENTINA SA C / ARNEDO, JUAN PABLO S / PREVENTIVE MEASURES , dated June 4, 1999 of the Civil Court and Federal Trade No. 4 Secretary 8 ( Camuzzi later case) and the sentence handed down in car camera PUGLIESE FRANCISCO NICOLAS C / PEREZ CARLOS ENRIQUE S / PREVENTIVE MEASURES, Judgement of 30 December 1999 by the Honourable House Civil and Commercial Federal, Room 2 (the PSA case .)

They all did rise to the precautionary measures requested by holders of trademarks registered in Argentina. The measures were to order the Argentina Chancellery (Branch Manager ARGENTINA NIC) in a precautionary manner suspend a domain name registered by a third and allow the trademark owner register your name.

This in the end that, during the process , the domain name is registered, and therefore can be used commercially by the trademark holder at the expense of the person who registered the domain.
The solution in two cases appears to be the fair composition of the interests in conflict (Case Freddo and Camuzzi). However we raise some doubt as decided in the case PSA and especially the tendency to establish a general rule that favors the registration of a mark on the domain registration.

Freddo merits of the case.

In this case, a company that provides Internet services SPOT NETWORKS, registered the domain name freddo.com.ar.
The plaintiff is an ice cream chain that has a well-earned reputation in the city of Buenos Aires , so much so that the chain was acquired by a group of foreign capital a couple of years.
May be considered Freddo brand, owned by the plaintiff, has a reputation among consumers.
In this case His Honour considered that the registration of a word as a domain name, a word that matches a trademark, implies “a variant of the misuse of another’s trademark (Recital III first paragraph ).

Such misuse of another’s trademark – he argues the judge – have special circumstances that is unique to the use that can make the legitimate owner.

This means that unlike the normal abuse, in which they appear fake products or services in conjunction with the legitimate, illegitimate use blocks the possibility of the owner of the trademark registration as a domain. That last friendly ARGENTINA IAS rules that prevent register two identical domains.

This very special circumstances can take a protective measure to be transformed in anticipation of the sentence, even though this is not the subject of precautionary measures. (Quoting the decision of the magistrate CNCCF, Room I, due 7488 of 11.02.1993).

The measure taken is taken with legal basis in the art. 232 of the Code Procedure (mean precautionary generic) and is to terminate temporarily the NIC AR defendant’s domain and enter the actor during the litigation. The foundation established to consider the “prima facie case” by the magistrate in a publication of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). Transcribe the following sentence in the paragraph: “a domain name that is identical to existing trademarks may be owned or used only by the owner of such rights of intellectual property , demonstrable, or with his consent “

The danger in delay is found in the exclusion of being able to use your trademark as a domain by the holder and security contracautela resolved by staff of the actor.

Camuzzi merits of the case.

In this case the respondent registered the domain camuzzi.com.ar in his own name.

The plaintiff company CAMUZZI DE ARGENTINA SA is a well known concessionaire of public transportation and provision of gas . (GAS CAMUZZI vgr. PAMPEANA that serves the southeastern Buenos Aires Province, including Group companies).

The plaintiff holds two records in Argentina ARGENTINA CAMUZZI Trade Mark in Classes 39 ( transport and storage ) and 42 (Miscellaneous).

In the reference case the court interpreted the mere fact that a trademark owner’s domain coincides with the foundation to take by established a prima facie case required prudential.

So specifically noted: “It is not, in my view, unreasonable in the state of play of communications , which he has intended to use a trademark as a domain name on the Internet. The same goes for those who wish to use this medium of trade name. In this way, the likelihood in the right relied upon to establish the interim respondent, is, in my opinion, sufficiently established. “

A judge, unlike what happened in “Freddo” does not qualify legally conduct who registered the domain name. Notes that the conditions imposed by NIC ARGENTINA – impossibility of two identical domains – “it is clear that no registration of the domain name sought by the plaintiff, in attention to the previous record that would have granted the defendant here, which, strictly speaking, involves the denial of the trademark owner of any possibility of use of its mark as a domain name on the Internet. “

As for the danger of further points to the judge that it is understood as “the danger of damage arising from delay that necessarily involves judicial recognition of a right in the sentence, I think it looks set to the species by the impossibility of plaintiff access to the registration of domain camuzzi.com.ar until eventually decided the trial of knowledge relevant. This can be interpreted, at present, somehow, as a commercial disadvantage compared to other companies if can, with their own identification, use and provide services that requires access to the Internet. “

The magistrate framing the injunction as provided by art. 232 of the Procedural Code and Article. 50 of the TRIPS Agreement ( Law 24,425).
Resolved to grant the injunction by recognizance provided by the company responsible for plaintiff.

Psa merits of the case.

This is a statement as noted earlier by the Honourable Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Federal, Room 2 nd.
The trial judge ordered an injunction similar to Freddo and CAMUZZI cases on behalf of Mr. Francisco Nicolas Pugliese and company INDUSTRIES PUGLIESE SA on the basis of ownership by Francisco Pugliese PSA brand registered in the INPI in classes 7, 11, 21 and 41.

In this case, for purposes of determining the existence of “right good smoke” the Chamber determined: a) ownership of the trademark “psa” identical to the disputed domain headed by the actor. b) the senior mark over the domain name registered by the respondent.

Moreover, in Section 4) The Court further stated that “it indicate whether the domain name is a trademark or not, the fact is that what is here is in play is the protection of a trademark registration , which would be used by the owner who is not, and this intelligence is inevitable implementation of the provisions on the subject brings the TRIPS .. “The Chamber also plays the argument in the earlier cases referred to the use of the trademark “psa” registered as a domain, is exclusive holder of the legitimate use in the Internet field.

The domain name registration, described by HE House and brand abuse, prevents the rightful owner of the Internet access market with its own brand, established its own site and distribute their products from there.

Unlike resolutions previously discussed, HE real contracautela House set a $ 20,000 by the plaintiff.

Judicial doctrine in trademark piracy.Of the judgments discussed can draw the following judicial doctrine:

• Registering a domain is identical to a trademark owned by a third party amounts to misuse of that mark.
• The abuse is a qualified use of the special feature to prevent the owner of the trademark registration of the trademark use on the Internet.
• Is independent of whether the mark is well-known or not. Note that no psa brand reputation, which did not prevent the enactment of the measure.
• Irrelevant, at least not arise from the decisions, good or bad faith of the domain registrant.
• Due to the special characteristics of trademark infringement, precluding the possibility of using the mark on the Internet for the owner, the interim measure may be a preview of the sentence.
• No mention is made in the resolutions to the specialty, an issue we will discuss later.

3. Critical considerations about the sentences.

The judicial doctrine emanating from the resolutions discussed is apparent reasoning means that all domain registration implies per se a violation of trademark rights.

Followed this reasoning in a linear fashion would lock the development of the Internet as any registered domain name can find the same or similar mark (Article 3, subsection b of the Act) between the million and a half marks registered in the INPI in the 42 classes of nomenclature.

Also, given that the Internet can be viewed from any country, it is not surprising that the claim for abuse will be made on the basis of foreign trademarks.
Not to mention internet domains registered in Network Solutions, the so-called dot com or TLDs.

The latter course is not the product of our imagination, as if the American company PRINCE Prince Sportswear Group Inc. in the United States began a lawsuit against the British firm Prince plc to terminate the prince.com domain that had been using . The foundation was registered PRINCE brand in the Office of Trademarks of the United States. Le British company in turn sued the U.S. by the High Court of the United Kingdom on the basis of English PRINCE brand belonged to him. As it was an international lis pendens on the dot-com domain.

The argument that the mere registration of a domain involves the violation of any brand in the 42 classes, not in charge of the specialty.

In this regard, the doctrine has stated that “should not be inferred that the use of a domain name infringes in any case the right of the owner of the mark … This still needs to be that there is identity or similarity between the goods or services which the trademark is registered and those for which there is the use of the domain name, so that as a result of this, there is a risk of induction of error, or at best misleading to say or induction association. As it follows, can not be said that the use of the domain name identical or similar to an earlier mark in itself constitute a violation but that it is necessary to relate to the content of the web page or other the resources of other internet class for whose identification is used.

Similar situation is observed in the United States. Brands in this country, even against identical or similar domains, are protected when there is a likelihood of confusion involving the similarity between the marks and the proximity of the products.
Thus the doctrine has stated that “the proximity of the marks, eg products or services distinguished with the brand, and how similar each other is more important online than in the real world.

In the UK the doctrine meant to be taken into account the principle of specialty in the field of domain names, with the exception of the trademark in International Class 38 which protects the service of telecommunications . In this case the registration of a domain – to be used in Internet communications and thus – can be countered by the similarity of services.

The cofounder of LR International today became RS-Health & Beauty Systems following the acquisition of shares from another investor, made his comeback in a new MLM company with NWA (Network World Alliance) that distributes the same products which holds the license, but read it here and there, cheaper than the competition.

While Mr. Helmut Spikier has every right to create a company and then resell it, the very principle of enrichment investment and we can not take away the merit of having raised his company at the forefront of European companies Direct Sales before selling, but personally, I think be much less concerned with the fate of thousands of distributors who have contributed to its financial success and who are likely to see their income mom melt like snow in sunshine.

This is not my idea of the purpose of relationship marketing that I build on the concept of support and sharing for the success of all once for all.

Which brings me to the following observation? When you intend to get involved in a MLM company, no matter which one, be sure to check if it meets all five criteria essential Network Marketing.

Especially remember to check the experience of the management team and its integrity.

The team leader must have solid experience in network marketing and not simply be composed of former corporate executives who treat their distributors as employees and not as independent.

Leaders must demonstrate complete integrity and flawless.

You can check this directly on the Internet but also by carefully reading the manual of policies and processes of companies you want to join because they perfectly reflect the intentions of the governing bodies on such bond dealers, conditions of contract termination , transfer on death etc …

For instance, an article in a contract such as “The Company …. Reserves the right to terminate or withdraw a concession, with or without notice, when deemed necessary and appropriate. “Should encourage all applicants to thinking when the company’s intentions towards him when he would be liable for significant revenue from its efforts.

Fortunately for the true believers of the opportunity to achieve financial freedom through Network Marketing, there are some MLM companies that respect their distributors over the long term because with the five pillars that are indispensable experience and integrity of leaders the right time in the industry, good product, good compensation plan and a proven and duplicable system.

One last tip gets help to find those good companies.

One way to generate income on the Internet has long been selling advertising space on sites and mailing lists (either directly to advertisers, either through the exchange and contextual advertising system).

You can create a hobby-sati, placing it in different places contextual advertising – and to receive fair income. And you can create a site specifically for future advertisers – and he does not sell advertising space, and the specific potential customers. This gives us several times more revenue (as a target audience, you can refer to it as possible individually – that means higher conversions and more profits).

Yesterday I learned about one such site. It was created specifically for the creation of the target audience for a tourist company.

This Italomaniya – http://www.itlm.ru. It is for this project; Alex Wexler announced yesterday a set of authors writing on the subject of Italy.

No one is sure what prompted the modification
in the pronunciation of English vowels, but everyone agrees those changes had a
profound effect on the language. If you have read Chaucer’s original works, you
know that they are extremely difficult to interpret. But Shakespeare’s texts,
written less than 200 years later, are easy for modern-English speakers to
understand.

Scholars think the Great Vowel Shift began
with a change in just one vowel sound (although there is disagreement about
which one). After one pronunciation changed, so the theory goes, the
pronunciations of the others gradually shifted to maintain distinctions between
vowels. The transitions also generated new diphthongs, two-element speech sounds
that start with the tongue in one position and end with it in a different
position (as in the "ou" of "out").

Unfortunately, the Great Vowel Shift coincided
with the rise of the printing press in England. Just as new printing technology
was solidifying spelling, the pronunciation of the vowels was shifting around.
That contributes to the disjunct between spelling and pronunciation that we
suffer today.

My result? I picked up the phone. A lot.

Don’t get me wrong. In some ways, e-travel has advanced remarkably in the past year, offering everything from four-minute videos of hotel bathrooms to $25-a-day car rentals on the spur of the moment. And yet, I found that many sites still couldn’t get even the easy things right. Instead of lounging around improving my tan, I spent hours hunched over my computer in a hotel room trying to fix the messes my detailed surfing had wrought. True, I struck up warm e-mail relations with the concierge at Los Angeles’ Hotel Bel-Air. Not so for my relations with my brother-in-law, which cooled after our online theater and concert bookings failed to come through on a Saturday night.

And that dog park? I found that because it was on one Web site’s “Top 20″ list of things not to miss in Palm Springs — along with an air-conditioned bus tour of celebrities’ homes and a golf museum (featuring balls that date back to the 1800s).

Such problems may be one reason the online travel business, while growing, is nowhere near as big as the industry once hoped. Too many travelers have been frustrated by false promises of $199 suites overlooking Central Park, or are simply too afraid to make costly purchases that vacations often involve (how about that $99,000 space-travel package, billed as the “ultimate ride”?). According to Forrester Research Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., less than 30% of households online actually made any travel bookings this year. Travel Web sites “just aren’t user-friendly,” says Henry Harteveldt, an analyst there.

Even Terry Jones, the CEO of Travelocity.com (www.travelocity.com), one of the nation’s biggest travel Web sites, says he called a travel agent before he went on a vacation to Morocco. And he’d do it again. “We can’t sell you everything,” he says. “The Internet isn’t for exotic destinations and complex trips.”

My trip wasn’t exactly exotic. Nor was it very complex: With my husband and eight-month-old son, I planned to fly from Portland, Ore., to Los Angeles for a big-city weekend with my brother-in-law, then drive to Palm Springs for some rest and relaxation. Never did I dream that just booking my flight would take a week — longer than my whole trip.

From the start, I discovered that Web sites that offer air fares seem to specialize in asking the same questions, over and over again: flight times, flight dates, departure cities, arrival cities. Three times I tried the well-known online bidding site, Priceline.com (Priceline.com), and three times it rejected me within three minutes, shooting back e-mails saying “sorry” to my progressively higher bids. (“Sorry, we couldn’t get you a ticket,” says a Priceline.com spokesman.) Combine that with the distractions so many of these new jazzy sites now have (click on a picture of Hawaii and you end up reading about the habits of manta rays), and four days later, you’ll still be at the computer with no tickets.

Ultimately, I would try a handful of sites that specialize in last-minute “bargains” — as well as those “e-saver” fares airlines release just before the travel dates. But I wasn’t flexible enough on my departure times. Defeated, I logged onto the Alaska Airlines site and paid $475 each, not exactly the rock-bottom bargain of my dreams.

At least my flight existed. Chris and Whitney Chandor, of Pineville, Pa., weren’t so lucky. They booked first-class tickets for $900 each for a long weekend in the Bahamas last March on Travelocity.com. When the Chandors arrived at the airport, they were told US Airways had canceled their flight a month earlier without bothering to tell them. “If they had called us, we would have been able to help,” says a Travelocity.com spokesman. A US Airways spokesman wouldn’t comment on an individual case, but says it is the airline’s responsibility to notify travelers about changes. Instead of fishing in the Bahamas with friends, the Chandors spent hours arguing with desk agents and airline managers — to say nothing about that cold weekend at a second-rate B&B in Maryland.

“My vacation was ruined,” says Mr. Chandor, who vows never to book an electronic ticket again, though US Airways eventually did give the couple new, free tickets. He’ll go with the “human element” next time, he says, via the old-fashioned telephone.

For my “phoneless” vacation, the surfing was surprisingly smoother on the hotel front. I had no problems, for example, arranging my appointment for a facial on one hotel Web site — which I could do even before reserving a room there. It also took me just minutes to snare a room online at Los Angeles’ swank Hotel Bel-Air. There, via e-mail, a friendly concierge found me a baby sitter and promised to have a crib waiting in our room. “We will take care of it,” he wrote.

Promises, promises. When we arrived at the Bel-Air at 1 a.m. — late flight, hour-long wait in the Avis line at LAX (making the idea of “virtual” travel more appealing) — there was no crib in the room, so I had to call the front desk. (Because I came in so late, the hotel must have thought I was a no-show, a spokeswoman says.) Reservations for all kinds of travel arrangements made on the Web sometimes don’t materialize, either because of simple human error — or worse, says Phillip McKee, assistant director of Internet Fraud for the National Consumer’s League. “Just because you make a reservation online doesn’t mean you should rely on it being there,” he says. “Calling to make sure will save a lot of heartache.”

And maybe it wasn’t because I booked my room on the Internet, but I was given the smallest room in the whole hotel. (I know this for certain, because it just so happens I wrote a story last year about the smallest rooms in hotels, and the one I was assigned this time is the same one I measured for that story.) We complained, and got a bigger room — at 3 a.m.

The next morning, while my husband was lounging by the pool, I was hooking up my laptop inside the hotel room, anxious to see if the request I made through the “Culture Finder Ticket Butler” on Digitalcity.com (Digitalcity.com) had been filled. Crisis: The show (a concert with Audra McDonald) was cancelled. I asked about alternatives, but my requests went unanswered. (“You should have gotten a response,” says a spokesman for CultureFinder.com (CultureFinder.com), which is responsible for finding the tickets.) Growing slightly panicked, I sent a note to my new friend, the concierge, seeking suggestions. Other guests enjoyed a relaxing afternoon in the sun. I spent much of the day in the room, checking e-mail.

Finally, I booked a dinner reservation on a site called RestaurantRow.com (RestaurantRow.com) (“If you can’t cook, click!”) and then called my brother-in-law to see if he had heard of it. He hadn’t. And what were we doing tonight, anyway, he wanted to know? In the end, none of my entertainment requests came through. (At the last minute, the concierge found us theater tickets for “The Vagina Monologues” — at $175 each — but for some reason, I couldn’t sell the guys on it.) The baby sitter showed up, as promised, and we went to the restaurant I had booked online. While the food was delicious, it turned out to be in a fairly dicey neighborhood — something the Internet never told me. OK, I decided, it might not be such a bad idea to reach for the phone once in a while.

Clearly, these are just a few of the bugs that e-travel needs to work out. Never mind the widespread fear of credit-card fraud all online users face, or the junk e-mails that always seem to bombard your inbox days after you visit a site. Some sites have hidden biases, allowing travel companies that advertise with them to dominate flight listings. (That might explain my trouble finding a cheap fare.) Another caution: Don’t be too impatient and click on the purchase button more than once — you could get charged several times. Then there was the time Robin Crook was elated at the great price she found for a hotel room in Vancouver, Wash. The problem? She really wanted to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia.

Because of various glitches, as many as 80% of the 1,000 or so existing travel-related Web sites may not be around in three years, according to a Bear, Stearns study. Robert A. LaFleur, co-author of the report, argues that Web travel is still in its infancy despite its rapid growth. For now, the report says, it’s “all lookie, no bookie.”

Still, the Internet can be a wonderful research tool for trips — just be sure to bring a printer along, or you’ll be copying out a lot of directions by hand. (And don’t tell anyone what you’re doing, or you’ll end up becoming an online travel agent for all your friends and family.) During the trip, I also relied on a lot of virtual advice — free guides, discussion groups and chat rooms, and hundreds of tour company brochures.

Rick Hyde, a sales engineer in Mountain View, Calif., had scheduled a diving trip to Fiji last June, but was worried about a U.S. State Department warning about civil unrest on the Pacific island. So he signed on to a “coup discussion group” where he was able to monitor an in-depth debate on Fijian politics, and what he read convinced him he’d be safe. When his concerns shifted to dive conditions, water temperature and coral sites, there were discussion groups for those, too.

But in Palm Springs, I found that glowing reviews on many tourism sites may well be the biggest virtual trap out there. Aside from independent Internet discussion groups, I came across only one negative comment on a travel Web site (it warned that the “Palm Springs Follies,” a musical by local senior citizens, was “recommended for viewers over 65″). All it took was one visit to the hotel’s concierge to deter me from several spots I’d read about online: Desert Hot Springs, a town described by one site as a “Mecca for vacationers,” was locally referred to as “Desperate Hot Springs,” she told me. (“That’s an old joke,” says Jo Lynn Slaughter, executive director of the Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not true. Those people just need to be educated.”)

Another town, about two hours away, sounded charming on a Web site, but in the concierge’s opinion was a “total waste of time.” In about five minutes, she gave me a map, pointed out some local attractions, and sent me on my way, making a mockery out of the hours of computer research I’d done that morning. Of course, trusting a concierge is relinquishing control of your destiny, which matters more to members of the digital generation, who have grown up with the Internet, says Clare Lagiewski, who directs the travel and tourism program at Champlain College in Burlington, Vt. “They don’t believe a travel agent or tourism official will try as hard to find what’s right for them as they would themselves,” she says.

And maybe she’s right. As I drove back to LAX in the car I rented over the Internet, to take the flight home that I booked over the Internet, I did feel slightly empowered. But for some things, it still helps to get advice from a real human being. For instance, I was glad I brought along a coat, because the nights in Palm Springs were pretty cold. No Internet site mentioned that. My dad told me.