Labeled as security in Domain Parking and Traffic Monetization, started by News, Jul 2, 2019
That's tough to say
Take the words Jewellery (UK English) and Jewelry (American English, and coming up as a typo here)
or Center (American coming up as a typo here) and Centre (UK/AU)
When buying domains I also question this. Like, I just bought ar reg price ShoppeCentre.com (2 English words, correct spelling here,) but it would probably come up as a misspelling in the US.
The bot will have to factor in language 'discrepancies,' dialects from different provinces
and states. A broad range of issues. One hell of an algorithm if you ask me.
Anyway, I'm no mathematician/engineer, so looking forward to hearing the answer to this.
Fraud prevention and insurance these companies should have some protection but how much? Should anything close? We have seen trademark notices over one generic keyword with companies trying to claim their one dictionary word can't be combined with any other word or words. If every trademark was enforced as much as every company wanted there would be not a word left to use and arguments over every word in use.
I see worlds like "Intel / Signal" "Swiss / Intel" "Audio / Oracle" "Fund / Oracle" being marketed on BrandBucket, yet Oracle and Intel both have international TM.
So the services and potential brand dillution mustn't be an issue when displaying TM words. This made me curious, and I decided to get "Oracle / Intel" and "Intel / Oracle" as they're attractive names for blockchain tech oracle functions.
"Swiss / Intelt" currently on BrandBucket has two Trademark words "Swiss" and "Intel." which has me thinking "Oracle / Intel" cannot be discriminated against, just because each word is TM.
So I guess the buyer of TM words is within their rights to own the business name, as long as they're not causing "brand dilution," consumer confusion between brands, or operating under the TM classes (e.g. 36 financial) services (e.g. 36, computerised financial services, provision of insurance advice etc)
As you said, if it were legal for a company to hold universal rights to all services and produced gods branding etc, then citizen liberty to own by law said intellectual property would be excessively executed, and infringe on others right to a name.
*Edit: Sorry, this is a bit long but I had to say it
Nope, because the average internet user won't have access to these tools.
What if a consumer use browser add-on version came out? Generally, once a new security feature is tested and pounded out by a few companies, one of their team figures out a way to miniaturize, repackage, and capitalize off general consumable versions.
Maybe not now or in 5 years, but 10 years, guess we'll see.
Good point, which I agree with you on. That would be a game changer, but it would never kill it off completely imho.There are too many browsers available. I can't see Mozilla adopting something like this, because it have a negative effect on performance.
Another interesting twist would be considering current use of the cyber tech in corporate networks, in which all chairs, staff, employees, etc. Are required to use the secure network.
It's the same chairs behind the security that are the end users investors want to reach.
So, in essence, Said security may indeed effect typo investors looking to pitch said companies that will now be flagged, losing authority and trust.
Many may be blocked automatically and the potential buyer would never know anyone tried to reach them.
I have Brillince.com and Brillience.com is it a typo?! No it is brandable..
I suppose it comes down to the algorithm in their technology as to which domain names would be flagged as a typo and which would be cleared as a brandable alternate spelling.
I doubt they will use just one variable though, like "Typo domain - ban".
I would love to see the variables they used, but for security reasons, I doubt they would release them all publicly. Google doesn't release all theirs either.
However, when you do a Google search for a misspelling and it auto corrects the results to a proper spelling, it seems logical that a similar algorithm will be at play in the security protocols in how they outlined it, anyways.
As to the extent, we can only speculate.
Separate names with a comma.