Cybersquatting
Domaining Guide
Cybersquatting
Home | Up
Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known
as the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering,
trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit
from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The
cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company
who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.
The term is derived from "squatting",
which is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that
the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.
Cybersquatting however, is a bit different in that the domain names that are
being "squatted" are (sometimes but not always) being paid for through the
registration process by the Cybersquatters. 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.
Others post paid links via Google and
other paid advertising networks to the very (legitimate) site that the user
likely wanted, thus monetizing their squatting. As with many controversial
issues, some argue that the dividing line of cybersquatting is difficult to
draw, or that the practice is consistent with a capitalistic and free market
ethos.
Cybersquatting is one of the most loosely used terms related to domain name
intellectual property law and is often incorrectly used to refer to the sale
or purchase of generic domain names such as example.com.
Legal resolution
Domain name disputes involving alleged bad-faith registration 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.
A UDRP complaint may be initiated at
UDRP proceeding with an approved dispute resolution service provider. A
victim of cybersquatting may also file an
InterNIC Registrar Problem Report regarding a cybersquatter posing as a
registrar.
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 plaintiff, the defendant, or the location of
the server through which the name is registered. Countries such as China and
Russia do not view cybersquatting in the same way or degree that US law does.
People often choose the UDRP (Uniform Dispute Resolution Process) created by
ICANN because it is usually quicker and cheaper than going to court, but
courts can and often do overrule UDRP decisions. In Virtual Works, Inc. v.
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (a dispute over the domain vw.net), the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals created a common law requirement that the cybersquatter
exhibit a bad faith intent in order to confer liability. This means that domain
names bearing close resemblance to trademarked names are not
per se impermissible. Rather, the domain name must have been registered
with the bad faith intent to later sell it to the trademark holder.
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 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
(Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) a 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 take 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". For example, little known Heathrow Land Development in
Florida attempted to use their narrow one-class trademark and the UDRP process
to acquire heathrow.com.
Australia is another example - auDA requires anyone registering a .com.au
Second Level Domain to have a valid entitlement for that domain - ie. a
registered business name with an Australian Business Number (ABN) issued by the
Australian Taxation Office. However, this has failed to protect Australia
from such cybersquatting acts. Any Australian citizen over the age of 16 can
obtain an ABN (which is free) and use it to register as few or as many domain
names as they like.
Internationally, the
United Nations copyright agency called WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization) has, since 1999, provided an arbitration system wherein a
trademark holder can attempt to claim a squatted site. In 2006, there were 1823
complaints filed with WIPO, which was a 25% increase over 2005's rate. On
average, 84% of claims are decided in the complaining party's favor ([1])
Notable cases
With litigation
-
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v.
Doughney, 2001 (peta.org)
Without litigation
-
The White House against Whitehouse.com and Whitehouse.org
-
stevejobs.com
See also
External links
Home | Up | Domain name speculation | Name generator | Domain parking | Domain hack | Typosquatting | Domain sniping | Domain hijacking | Cybersquatting | Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy | List of most popular given names
Domaining Guide, made by MultiMedia | Websites for sale
This guide is licensed under the GNU
Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
|
3.149.29.192
User Stats:
Today: 0
Yesterday: 0
This Month: 0
This Year: 0
Total Users: 117
New Members:
62.60.xxx.xxx
Server Time: