05/05/2008

Domainers Can't Have It Both Ways: Until Blatant Cybersquatters Are Exterminated, All Domainers Will Suffer

It has always amazed me that domainers take such umbrage to the UDRP, ACPA and other cybersquatting provisions, while doing nothing to provide disincentives for these laws to exist.  I don’t know what the actual percentages are, but the number of domains registered which are clearly cybersquatting someone else’s famous trademark must be extremely high.  We have clients who have literally hundreds of blatant cybersquatters sitting on typos of their various domain names.  Virtually any company with significant traffic has typosquatters diverting traffic for their own PPC revenue.  The cybersquatting problem continues to grow while, at the same time, legitimate domainers work hard to legitimize domain monetization practices.

There’s a wonderful post over at The Domains Blog titled “UDRP: Are Domainers their own worst enemy?”

We are all familar with the stat; in 85 percent of cases decided by the WIPO the panels transferred the disputed domain names to the complainant. I took a hard look at some recent cases in light of LH.com and this famous statistic. Certainly having this 85% figure out there is the pink elephant in the room. It hurts the perpection of domaining. It makes it sound to the layman that 85% of domains are just one complant away from being taken.

Here’s the problem.

Loser cases... Losers are not hard to spot...  All of these add to the 85% figure we have hanging over our heads....
Here is the fact hidden in the 85% figure. The vast majority of cases that go against the domain holder are horrible cases that you or I would vote for the trademark holder. They involve domains containing a famous marks, typo’s of famous marks. Many cases involve domain holders which own mulitple domains containing typo’s mispells of famous trademarks.

If you are in the domain business at any level here are some rules for you. Do not register domains that infringe on famous marks. If you own any such names and get a C & D letter give the domain back. If you receive a UDRP complaint and have such a name give the domain up. You have a loser.  You aren’t going to keep the domain.
You are not only going to hurt your reputation, but the domain industry, other domainers, parking companies, PPC companies.

It does not help you or the industry to take losers to a decision.

If you instist on allowing these types of losers going to a decision, then you clearly have no regard for your  reputation, you clearly don’t care about the industry, the parking companies you do business with and maybe those in the industry should stop doing business with you.If the loser cases were not allowed to go to deicision the 85% number would drop dramtically, maybe to 50% at that point we would get the monky off our back and start with an even playing field. 

Yes there are very bad decisions where generic names are taken away and given to the complaint (LH.com). There are many domains that are on the bubble.  Domains whose trademark claim is actually in dispute. Those you fight. Those you fight not only for yourself but for the industry, for your fellow domainer.

Remember each case you take to a decision will have an effect on all other domain disputes down the line.

You don’t live in a bubble.

You are part of an industry.

Your actions effect us all.

Don’t push your losers on us.

The author, who I understand is a domainer and lawyer, could not be more correct.  Until domainers themselves remove the black hats from their community, and work cooperatively with the trademark community to extinguish the obvious cybersquatters, the entire industry will in fact suffer.  While the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is a wonderful start in separating legitimate domainers from domainers whose business model is cybersquatting, more needs to be done in the future.  There needs to be proactive programs put in place which offer potential to reduce the overall number of sites engaged in cybersquatting.  Only then will “domaining” carry position, rather than negative, connotations in the regular world. 

COMMENTS

Hi,

Great posting, like it a lot.

I deal in Domain Names and have a blog about it all here:

http://domain-profits.blogspot.com/

Hope you visit.

Regards,

G.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834208fd253ef00e5522705448834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Domainers Can't Have It Both Ways: Until Blatant Cybersquatters Are Exterminated, All Domainers Will Suffer:

Cybersquatting & Domain Name Dispute Blog Homepage: Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Attorneys / Lawyers

Cybersquatting: 'How To' Resources

  • Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - Wikipedia
    The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (also known as Truth in Domain Names Act), a United States federal law enacted in 1999, is part of A bill to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite (S. 1948). It makes people who register domain names that are either trademarks or individual's names with the sole intent of selling the rights of the domain name to the trademark holder or individual for a profit liable to civil action.
  • Typosquatting - Wikipedia
    Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, is a form of cybersquatting which relies on mistakes such as typographical errors made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. Should a user accidentally enter an incorrect website address, they may be led to an alternative website owned by a cybersquatter.
  • Reverse Domain Hijacking - Wikipedia
    The term reverse domain hijacking refers to the practice of inequitably unseating domain name registrants by accusing them of violating weak or non-existent trademarks related to the domain name.
  • Uniform DomainName DisputeResolution Policy - Wikipedia
    The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a process established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the resolution of disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names. The UDRP policy currently applies to all .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, and .org top-level domains, and some country code top-level domains.
  • Cybersquatting - Wikipedia
    Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

ARCHIVES

© 2011 Traverse Legal, PLC. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse Legal on LinkedInTraverse Legal on FacebookTraverse Legal on Twitter
Events & Conferences:
  • International Trademark Association 2011, San Francisco, California
  • Cyber Law Summit 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Game Developers Conference 2011, San Francisco, California
  • DOMAINfest 2011, Santa Monica, California
Recent Attorney Speaking Engagements:
  • South By Southwest 2010 SXSW Interactive Conference, Austin, Texas
  • West LegalEdcenter Midwestern Law Firm Management, Chicago, Illinois
  • Internet Advertising under Part 255, Altitude Design Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Online Defamation and Reputation Management, News Talk 650 AM, The Cory Kolt Show, Canada Public Radio Saskatewan Canada
  • Alternative Fee Structures, Center for Competitive Management, Jersey City, New Jersey
  • FTC Part 255 Advertising Requirements, Mom 2.0 Conference, Houston, Texas
  • Webmaster Radio, Cybersquatting & Domain Monetization, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Notable Complex Litigation Cases Handled By Our Lawyers:
  • Trademark Infringement, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Cybersquatting Law, Trademark Law and Dilution Detroit, Michigan
  • Internet Defamation & Online Libel Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Trade Secret Theft, Chicago, Illinois
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Miami, Florida
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Eastern Dist. of Virginia, Alexandria
  • Stolen Domain Name, Orlando, Florida
  • Commercial Litigation, Tampa, Florida
  • Copyright Infringement and Cybersquatting Law, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Mass Tort Litigation, Los Angeles, California
  • Stolen Domain Name, Detroit, Michigan
  • Adwords Keyword Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles, California
  • Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Non-Compete Agreement and Trade Secret Theft, Detroit, Michigan
  • Mass Tort, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Mass Tort, Tyler, Texas
  • Insurance Indemnity, New York
  • Copyright Infringement, Detroit, Michigan