Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Lawyer Attorney Law Firm - World's Dumbest Domain Cybersquatter Revealed!

« Who Is Cybersquatting on Microsoft.com? | Main | How to Lose Under the UDRP Even When Respondent Fails to Respond »

2008.01.18

Comments

Mr Sobolev is not just a dumb cybersquatter, he is also a dangerous internet stalker who has been harassing a teenage celebrity and her family for years. I was referred to this site by them and their efforts at trying to stop him.

Domain squatters are out of control. Squatting on trademark rights should be subject to criminal laws. That is the only way to stop squatters from infringing.

I have a case where I am being accused of cybersquatting, yet the alleged wronged party knew all along that they were leasing the domain from me. Now they want it for nothing...

Just another side of the coin...

We are totally pleased that you have visited this page dealing with adwords tila nguyen.

Sorry my friend. You registered a .mobi s. That extension is governed by the UDRP even in Russia. I appreciate that did not understand the law and screwed up. I will tell you what. I'll take down this page if you transfer your domains to the rightful owners.

Bullshit. You are indeed The World's Dumbest Attorney.
We are talking about Russia here. In Russia, anyone can register ReadWriteWeb.ru or TraverseGlobal.ru and there is nothing you can do about it. Take a look at Techcrunch.ru for instance.

I agree. If readwriteweb, buzzmachine, craphound, crunchboard, deadspin, micropersuasion, scobleizer, sethgodin could all join in a single action against this habitual cybersquatter under the UDRP, it would start to make economic sense. They could reduce their transactional costs by splitting the attorney, wipo, naf fee by 1/8. It is a slam dunk case of admitted habitual cybersquatting. It would take a naf / wipo arbitrator about 30 minutes to write an opinion and transfer order and what is a slam dunk case.

I vote for consolidated complaintant filings under the UDRP against habitual cybersquatters!

Thanks Traci: Obviously, our goal is to bring attention to the problem of cybersquatting. Our hope is that by outing the World's Dumbest Cybersquatter, he might become a poster-boy for reform. There are a large number of cybersquatters who just don't understand the law like Mr. Sobolev. Maybe this post also will deter some would-be squatters who 'think' they know something about trademark law (ie unregistered marks are not protectable).

Currently, the UDRP provides so few penalties (ie loss of a single domain or a small group of domains associated with trademarks held by a single complainant) that habitual squatters merely build a small attrition rate into their cybersquatting business model. They could care less about the loss of a relative few domains and the PPC revenue attributable to those domain names.

As long as habitual volume cybersquatting remains a viable low risk business model, it will continue to grow. My light-hearted attempts to shame Mr. Sobolev as the WDC may help educate and thus deter the low-end would-be squatter (those who don't know much about trademark law and thus engage in squatting based on misinformation), but won't have any impact on the high-volume squatters who could care less and hide behind domain proxies and private registration under Cayman Island companies. Only fundamental reform to the system and internal pressure from within can change the path we are on. Hopefully, domain portfolio holders and trademark holders can come together on this issue and find a way to get this out of control train under control.

Ron: You are correct that the cybersquatting problem continues to escalate, especially typosquatting. And trademark holders have no choice. They must put a program in place to protect their marks on the web. This does not mean you have to squash every squatter. But you had better be able to show a court you are doing something in order to avoid a laches argument.

You are correct that habitual cybersquatters are 'winning' because they tend to lose such a small percentage of their domains to the UDRP. This is because many companies are still unaware their domains and marks are under attack or don't realize the trademark danger at hand.

A possible change to the UDRP would allows many complainants to join together against habitual squatters and bring a single proceeding across hundreds or thousands of domains. The key would to apply this policy only to habitual squatters, the ones who register so many variations of famous marks that there is no viable defense; i.e. www.wwwmicrosoftcom.com. Habitual squatters make up a huge percentage of the total numbers of domains being squatted.

Yes, those squatters would lose some of their more generic domains or domains which might otherwise have some defenses under the UDRP (i.e. 3 or 4 letter domains that also happen to be trademarks) as a result of their status as habitual squatters. They would be PRESUMED to have known about those more generic marks when they registered. This would create an incentive for domainers to cleanse their portfolios of clear trademark violations.
We need to create some incentive for domainers to ensure the have reasonably clean portfolios, so they don't just sit back and collect PPC revenue on the expectation that the trademark holder won't notice them for months or years to come. There needs to be more disincentive to holding trademarked domains built into the system.

There are other ideas afloat but my belief is that we need to find a way to deal with volume-based bad faith cybersquatters in volume, while protecting the portfolio of legitimate domainers. A tricky balance indeed. But legitimate domainers are being hurt by cybersquatters as well. For those of us who do this for a living (lawyers and domianers), it is easy to identify the habitual and intentional squatter.

When you look at what is going on out there is is pretty jaw dropping. Virtually everybody who is anybody is getting cybersquatted. There are hundreds of typosquatters on the top traffic web sites on the internet. PPC advertising revenues from direct navigation is apparently enough to justify the intentional unlawful activity. The real problem is that the economics of chasing these squatters down under the UDRP or ACPA is daunting. But if you don't protect your trademarks in cyberspace, you potentially lose your ability to enforce those marks. For any e-commerce company doing business on the web, trademarks are often 7 or 8 figure values. So you can't just leave them open to attack. Threat letter campaigns have marginal success since any institutional cybersquatter has not intention of voluntarily turning over their squatted domains.

Somehow, the remedies available to trademark holders need to be increased and the laws strengthened. It is the only way that the cybersquatting virus spreading across the internet can be brought under control.

You have created a genre, Enrico. Very well written and funny. A perfect illustration of cybersquatting in terms everyone can understand. Bravo!

You are missing the point. Cybersqattting is illegal. And cybersquatters are giving all domainers a bad name and making the internet seem like a cesspool of criminals.

This guy is pretty dumb. Getting value out of your trademark protected domains is an art. It is all about the things you CAN"T say and certainly don't want to put in an email.

If the company doesn't get trademarks, why should we all be punished? Companies should be required to protect themselves before asserting rights against others. I also thought that you had to have a registered trademark in order for someone take my domains from me. Now you are telling me that being first to register doesn't count for anything. What am I supposed to do with all these high traffic typo-domains?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Official Trademark Clearinghouse Agent