What's A Cybersquatter?

[CharlieA]

Dell Sues Cybersquatters

Are they really cybersquatters?

I was under the impression a cybersquatter was someone who regged a domain and then tried to sell it to the company who held the trademark.

 

[Dave_Z]

http://www.patents.com/acpa.htm

SEC. 3002. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
(d)(1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
`(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
`(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
`(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
`(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
`(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
`(B)
(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
`(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
`(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
`(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
`(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
`(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
`(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 without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
`(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
`(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
`(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
`(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
`(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
`(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
`(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
`(E) As used in this paragraph, the term `traffics in' refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

For a more "English" explanation, read Dr. Berryhill's comments at this link:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/summary_judgment_creative_typosquatting/

The bottom line of that Dell suit is they believe the 3 persons in question were
trying to profit off Dell's trademark without their consent.

 

[CharlieA]

Don't the big companies in the end profit? These people were affiliates. Is it because major corporations do not want to be affiliated with these typos or is it because they want 100% of the sale? I don't see the harm in "typosquatting".

Lets say I'm an Amazon affilate and I own xxbbbbbooxx360.com (or some other variation of Xbox360) and I make lots of cash by referring people to Amazon to buy games. Would Microsoft come pounding on my door?

 

[JasMate]

Crazy I didn't think a typo could be protested?

 

[CharlieA]

I didn't either. I think what got the big companies mad is the redirect. Maybe if the affiliates had a disclaimer saying they were not owned by, "Big Company" just affiliates it would've been OK.

 

[Easydoms]

They mentioned it on Radio 5 yesterday, they were discussing how quick LAGALAXY.INFO & CO.UK were registered minutes after it was announced that a certain David Bechham was moving there.

I will let you make your own minds up on that one!!

Maybe Victoria Beckham needs the cash for a boob job!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CharlieA]

The LA Galaxy example is an obvious case of cybersquatting. I don't think typosquatting is the same.

 

[Rogor]

new to this list so please forgive if this is well known. This seems to fit the thread and it's understandable -
Domain Name Legal Issues it's at-
http://www.domainsystems.com/news/legal-issues.jsp

 

[freddy]

would be interesting to see if Dell keeps the names, most time TM Holder sue and ask the domain owner to delete the name.

 

[diegoid]

Crazy I didn't think a typo could be protested?

Well, i don't think so. Example: ringtones.com / ringtone.com / ringtong.com

I don't think you have problem with those typos.

They are very generic words.