What actually is cybersquatting means?

[jaikini]

hi,
i see the word cybersquating on many threads.what actually is cybersquatting means?
thanks,
jaik

 

[Eric]

Cybersquatting is a term used to describe the practice of registering and claiming rights over domain names which are, arguably, not for the taking. The cybersquatter then offers the domain to the rightful owner at an inflated price, an act which some deem to be extortion.

You can read more here, if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

 

[peter phillips]

Cybersquatting means registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark by selling it at an inflated price. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit. The actual act of buying unused or abandoned domain names is not tecnically illegal but using the domain name in bad faith is.

 

[Mark]

Cybersquatting means registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark by selling it at an inflated price. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit. The actual act of buying unused or abandoned domain names is not tecnically illegal but using the domain name in bad faith is.

There are many definitions by many people ..... Most folks don't even think limiting it to TM's ( ™ ) is enough - they think anyone who doesn't develop a domain that is used or owned in other extensions by other people is the same thing.

I've been called worse than "Cybersquatter" over domains people had no right to complain about , mostly Generic terms with no TM's .... pfffft

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Anyone can do it (But since no one has yet, I will ), but going to wikipedia is one of the best ways to get full information on any term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Cybersquatting is a derogatory term used to describe the practice of registering and claiming rights over Internet domain names that are, arguably, not for the taking. The cybersquatter then offers the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price, an act which some deem to be extortion.

Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than that at which they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks about the person or company the domain is meant to represent in an effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them. For example, a company has registered the domain name of "billgates.com", with an asking price of $1 million and a target market of only one person in the world.

Many cybersquatters also register many variants of a name. For example, a cybersquatter squatting on eFingernail.com may also squat on eFingernail.net, ElectronicFingernail.com, ElectronicFingernail.net and any other variants they can devise.

[edit]
Legal resolution
Domain name disputes are typically resolved using the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) process developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Critics claim that the UDRP process favors large corporations and that their decisions often go beyond the rules and intent of the dispute resolution policy.

Court systems can also be used to sort out claims of cybersquatting, but jurisdiction is often a problem, as different courts have ruled that the proper location for a trial is that of the complainant, the defendant, or the location of the server through which the name is registered. People often choose the UDRP process because it is usually quicker and cheaper than going to court, but courts can and often do overrule UDRP decisions.

Some countries have specific laws against cybersquatting beyond the normal rules of trademark law. The United States, for example, has the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999.

Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the names deleted (which often just means someone else will register it) or transferred to their ownership (which means paying regular renewal fees on all the names or risk them being registered by someone else). Under the ACPA the cybersquatter can be held liable for actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000 for each name found to be in violation.

There have been several instances of companies, individuals or governments trying to get generic domain names away from their owners by making false claims of trademark violation. Sometimes they are successful. This practice is called "reverse domain hijacking" and is also punishable by a penalty of up to $100,000 for each violation.

The term cybersquatting is sometimes wrongly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names.

Due to the shortage of descriptive and generic available domain names, covetous entities often try to exploit the term Cybersquatting to the suit their desired ends.



-Allan (None of the above is original to me)

 

[Untitled]

Thanx for the info people!!!

Untitled

 

[domainprince]

There have been several instances of companies, individuals or governments trying to get generic domain names away from their owners by making false claims of trademark violation. Sometimes they are successful. This practice is called "reverse domain hijacking" and is also punishable by a penalty of up to $100,000 for each violation.

This is a bit depressing. Any real example(s) for this?

 

[infinitomagazine]

thanks for all information regarding cybersquatting.
so, if i register a a domain like nike.sp that is cybersquatting "per se"?

by the way sp is a new domain extension.
not real, just for my example

 

[Genialnames]

the term cybersquatting is also abused at reverse in my opinion, I see it has been used to protect (throught a very questionable use of the legal terms on wich resides the current laws in the field of trademarks and intellectual right and copyrights etc that are generally very inadequated and outdated or even worse arbitrarly interpreted) the interests of big companies against individuals.

Also there is an open thread on this subject (closed to it at least) regard the use of plurals of wellknown domain names, if it could be considered a cybersquatting, that is a clear example of what I tell above , excluded some obvious abuse, that is easely recognizable by logic and it is related with names invented, not generic such google (evidently to register googles.co would be an abuse) for the majority of the cases this it not true, IMHO www.car and www.cars are two separatedd words, and www.car couldn't not sue www.cars for cybersquatting , he would have bought both, at a ridiculous price and avoid the whole issue, so instead to me it sound like www.car have intentionally avoid to register www.cars just waiting that someone would have registered www.cars to suck money from him , or just to play with him.
That's for spare just 7 bucks!
I I would the authority I would penalize www.car not also because he blocked the registration and circulation of a business aactivity basedd of a free domain name such it would be www.cars.com reling on the fact that nobody want buy it because scared of the fact he can pass for cybersquatter.

My five cents. (cause inflation )


Just to point out!

ps: forgetting the two names citedd here are just use for convenience and absolutely are not even vaguely related with the real sites ( I wont'be sued by both)

 

[khuldun]

so instead to me it sound like www.car have intentionally avoid to register www.cars just waiting that someone would have registered www.cars to suck money from him , or just to play with him.
That's for spare just 7 bucks!

Exactly, i have been thinking the same and i also posted about this thing on several other forums, the big guns are so hingry for money that they want to snatch every single dime out of the common mans pocket :td:

 

[slaydragon]

guess that is dealing with those trademarks things...not sure..