Should CYBER-SQUATTERS prosecuted under the LAW?

[AreYouSerious]

So should they be prosecuted under the max penalty? even small time cyber-squatters?

I know Microsoft has step up the act but mainly for larger skill cyber-squatters who have made alot of money off there trademark.


Just read about a company going after a small time cyber-squatter for $100,000.

Let me know what do you think?

 

[Diabro]

If they are infringing on their trademark they must go after them.

 

[FPForum]

I agree. if they are infringing on a trademark they should go after them...

 

[KingDon]

I think you guys mean, Infringing on a VALID trademark! I also believe they should prosecute thieves with bogus trademarks; I really like two way streets.

 

[Diabro]

I think you guys mean, Infringing on a VALID trademark! I also believe they should prosecute thieves with bogus trademarks; I really like two way streets.

What do you mean by bogus trademarks?

 

[fonzie_007]

As someone who deals with squatters on just about a weekly basis, I believe there should be stiffer penalties for squatters. Specifically, I believe there should be asset seizures for individuals who live overseas who believe they can operate with immunity because US law can't "touch" them.

 

[KingDon]

What do you mean by bogus trademarks?

Bogus trademarks happen when a person/company registers a trademark, in order to obtain a domain name they do not wish to pay for. Lets say I saw a name two years ago, and I though it would make a cool song/play/term/saying whatever. Lets also say I didn't want to sell it when someone else comes up with the idea, or sees where I'm going with the idea. Bogus people/companies would file a trademark (after I owned the name), and then attempt to use the court system to try and steal it from me.

I know the courts are starting to come down on these bogus trademarks (the government likes to fine criminals, who have money to pay fines), but I think they should prosecute both ends of this spectrum; and leave those of us in the middle, alone.

 

[accent]

Trademarks are how a customer knows they are getting the item that they think they are. That removes the issue beyond the arguments regarding patent and copyright - that the greater good accrues from open availability of intelectual property. There are arguements to be made on both sides of that matter.

With trademarks the issue is in drawing the line between what is a infringement and what is not. TM owners - valid ones - can and will push the system to cover as much ground as they can - witness Inc magazine successfully taking Inc.mobi and the efforts of a company making an oil sponge called "pig" to grab pig.everything.

Misspellings are yet another issue. Microosoft is pretty clear infringement, but what about IBN? I liken it to a big store on a main highway. The adjacent property owners certainly get more business as a result of the big store, but as long as they are not pretending to be that store then they are legal.

 

[metronome]

so instead of investing in domain we should just invest in trademark!:D

if only there is someone can invest in trademark like:"dubai", "rent", "poker", "forex", "insurance"~~ he would have been rich since there are so damm many people have "rent", or "insurance" or other high paying keywords that's being trademarked in their domain names:P

 

[KingDon]

It's pretty cut and dry with me, if you trademark a name long after I've owned the domain name, and then you come after me for my domain name, you're trying to steal what belongs to me.

If you come up with a brand name or slogan, and trademark it, and then after that, I then go and buy domain names that trick your customers into using my website, to sell them similar products or services, then I'm a squatter.

This is the direction I see the courts moving in, and I have no idea why they didn't follow this rule years ago, it seems pretty obvious. It kills me that these guys overseas blatantly cross this line every day; and there's nothing we can do because of their "mailing address". I wouldn’t have a beer with either one of them.

To me, it's just a matter of which came first, and I like that the courts are moving towards this conclusion.

 

[zero_haze_au]

As someone who deals with squatters on just about a weekly basis, I believe there should be stiffer penalties for squatters. Specifically, I believe there should be asset seizures for individuals who live overseas who believe they can operate with immunity because US law can't "touch" them.

I totally agree, many of the larger cyber squatters are based overseas, the problem is though that in a lot of cases - it is true that 'US' law can't touch them. However the registrars, or domain bodies can still deregister the name from them. But i also think that if the law does catch up they should have property sized to the value of damages caused to the trademark holders.

Also for smaller companies, many of them may only have Trademarks within their country, which is different from an International Trademark. So in reality even if you have a 'US' trademark or if i have and Australian trademark, this has no legal rights in any other country, unless you registered an International Trademark, during which you select the applicable countries and regions.

Cyber Squatters can also get away with this as the class or industry that you applied the trademark to most likely does not cover e-commerce or the online world. Obviously like 'Microsoft' is the only company who has that trademark, but smaller companies may have trademark, the same as someone else in the same country but just in a different industry.

if only there is someone can invest in trademark like:"dubai", "rent", "poker", "forex", "insurance"~~ he would have been rich since there are so damm many people have "rent", or "insurance" or other high paying keywords that's being trademarked in their domain names:P

Well, usually you cannot trademark generic terms, names of industry, places etc.

Just read about a company going after a small time cyber-squatter for $100,000.

Although a cyber squatter may be sued, for $100,000, this is 'always' just an initial scare tactic / warning, and most likely if they are only a 'small time cyber squatter' or if it was an honest mistake, the case well be settled for a much smaller amount.

I have been affiliated with a large online company who sued a particular person due to cyber squatting and at least in this case the company does do their research on person before suing for a large amount, and unless the person is deliberately making money of your image or defaming your brand, they will settle for less.

 

[Diabro]

What do you mean by bogus trademarks?

Bogus trademarks happen when a person/company registers a trademark, in order to obtain a domain name they do not wish to pay for. Lets say I saw a name two years ago, and I though it would make a cool song/play/term/saying whatever. Lets also say I didn't want to sell it when someone else comes up with the idea, or sees where I'm going with the idea. Bogus people/companies would file a trademark (after I owned the name), and then attempt to use the court system to try and steal it from me.

I know the courts are starting to come down on these bogus trademarks (the government likes to fine criminals, who have money to pay fines), but I think they should prosecute both ends of this spectrum; and leave those of us in the middle, alone.

I agree with you but if you are using something before someone else and before they file the Trademark do you actually not own the Trademark? I know there have been cases where people have lost domains to this but that is not the intent of the law as I understand it. I can be wrong though.

 

[Dave_Z]

Is the question "should cybersquatters be prosecuted under the law?" or is it
really "should cybersquatting be made a crime"? That's my impression of the
OP's question.

You've got civil matters and criminal matters. Cybersquatting is currently just
the former, while, say, murder is the latter for many jurisdictions.

There was one case I read that happened last year where the judge gave the
maximum monetary claim of $100,000, but I frigging forgot the name (aargh).
I'll post it here as soon as I can remember, unless someone else beats me to
it.

Oh, and good luck trying to seize assets from a cybersquatter who's living in a
country that doesn't see eye to eye with the US or so.

 

[fonzie_007]

Oh, and good luck trying to seize assets from a cybersquatter who's living in a
country that doesn't see eye to eye with the US or so.

My comment about asset seizures was targeted at the cybersquatters' domain portfolio. (although if they have other infringing domains, it raises additional questions about who should get these domains)

 

[Diabro]

My comment about asset seizures was targeted at the cybersquatters' domain portfolio. (although if they have other infringing domains, it raises additional questions about who should get these domains)

Well that makes more sense to me. Thank you for clarifying. The court could seize all of the domains or some of them. The domains could then be auctioned off and paid to the plaintiff(s), court costs or paid to charities which is how I believe the court deals with seized assets now. No matter what the courts already have that part in place so the hard part would be the process to confiscate the domains. :imho:

 

[deleted984054565403]

:imho:

If they've registered the name in bad faith, yes.
If they've registered the name as a genuine fan site of some sort that doesn't defame the original company or isn't loaded with ads and benefiting from the company for which the site is about, I don't believe they should be prosecuted.

:imho:

 

[Name Trader]

Bogus people/companies would file a trademark (after I owned the name), and then attempt to use the court system to try and steal it from me.

I had an interesting situation just this week. Someone approached me to sell them a domain. Because he didn't like the price, he told me that anyway he had a trademark on the domain so I couldn't sell it to anyone else, and if I did, he'd be contacting his IP lawyers. No trademark at USPTO (ok not definitive but an indication).

I was talking to my long lost brother this week also. He used much the same tactic to buy his business .com about 5-6 years ago. He approached the owner. They said $45,000. He told them he already had a trademark (after the domain was registered) so they couldn't sell it to anybody else (paraphrasing). He bought the domain for $3,000 eventually (which was a good price to get his company .com).

The difference in the 2 stories is my domain is a made up name combining 2 specific industry words together. Half of 1 and half of the other. It cannot obviously be used for anything other than the subject matter in the domain name, whereas my brother's domain is 2 short generic words, which could be used in a multitude of ways.

 

[Diabro]

I had an interesting situation just this week. Someone approached me to sell them a domain. Because he didn't like the price, he told me that anyway he had a trademark on the domain so I couldn't sell it to anyone else, and if I did, he'd be contacting his IP lawyers. No trademark at USPTO (ok not definitive but an indication).

I was talking to my long lost brother this week also. He used much the same tactic to buy his business .com about 5-6 years ago. He approached the owner. They said $45,000. He told them he already had a trademark (after the domain was registered) so they couldn't sell it to anybody else (paraphrasing). He bought the domain for $3,000 eventually (which was a good price to get his company .com).

The difference in the 2 stories is my domain is a made up name combining 2 specific industry words together. Half of 1 and half of the other. It cannot obviously be used for anything other than the subject matter in the domain name, whereas my brother's domain is 2 short generic words, which could be used in a multitude of ways.

Even if there is a TM on the name you can still sell it. That does not infringe on the TM.

 

[Dave_Z]

Even if there is a TM on the name you can still sell it. That does not infringe on the TM.

Depending on the circumstances:

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cach...sumer+Protection+Act&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ph

In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described undersubparagraph (a), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to

(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain withouthaving used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fideoffering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating apattern of such conduct

On the side, I finally remember the case I was referring to:

http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/b...rds-maximum-statutory-damages-in-cybersq.html

It also awarded Vericheck $100,000, the maximum amount of statutory damages for cybersquatting, based on “Mr. Lahoti’s bad faith and his deliberate and knowing acts, his pattern and practice of registering domain names that incorporate the trademarks of others, his efforts to extort thousands of dollars in exchange for transfer of the Domain Name, his disregard for the submission of inaccurate answers to interrogatories, and the actual confusion which is occurring in the marketplace….”

For these same reasons, the court found the case qualified as “exceptional” and awarded Vericheck its reasonable attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act.

So yes, a cybersquatter can have the maximum penalty imposed depending on
the judge hearing the case.

And thanks for clarifying that asset bit, fonzie. As you realized, it can present
even more issues, more so when some parties file frivolous disputes.

Don't we all wish life is simpler, eh?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Now I'm just throwing fuel on the fire here (Well, the glowing ember of what could be a fire ), as John knows where I really fall on this one... but...

Your signature... it has Mad.us . (Again, not my thoughts, just playing devil's advocate here.) Let's pretend you were an overseas investor who had mad.com (to avoid the nexus issue), and the magazine decides to pursue a claim against you... why should the government be involved in any capacity other than adjudicating the decision and then following pure civil procedure questions? IMHO (I think...), the ability to "reach" intangibles should be strictly limited, as otherwise we're just opening up the floodgates for similar abilities to be claimed by foreign jurisdictions (And I'll be darned if I have to be subject to Chinese IP law in my online dealings...).

Along the same lines, personally, I'm a little peeved that the courthouse in my county has the government prosecuting folks for stealing cable - why should my tax dollars go to Time Warner instead of making them protect their own assets? I'm a little peeved that over 98% of the burglar alarms in my county are "false alarms", and that every time the county sends a patrolman out it costs me (taxpayer) money directly and indirectly (the department then has to hire more officers to handle all of alarms, etc.), when it should be the alarm company that is charged for the false alarm (Let them pass the cost on to their customer) instead of ADT getting rich off my tax dollars.

Yeah, I'm feeling a little Ron-Paulish (tm) today... and may have gotten a bit off topic However, the thought is the same: the remedy provided at law is a purely civil one, and ought be so. Fonzie was not suggesting otherwise, I do not believe, but the OP's question seemed to beg for that inevitable conclusion, so I thought it should be addressed

-Allan :gl:

As someone who deals with squatters on just about a weekly basis, I believe there should be stiffer penalties for squatters. Specifically, I believe there should be asset seizures for individuals who live overseas who believe they can operate with immunity because US law can't "touch" them.