Cybersquatting: Giving the Domain Name Industry a Bad Name

Domain Name Investing Is Not CybersquattingBack in the mid-1990s when the Internet was just starting out, people of all stripes were quick to exploit this new medium. Some domain investors hit the jackpot by registering generic single-word domains, ultimately becoming dot-com millionaires. Others pursued less scrupulous opportunities and bought up trademarked domain names of prominent companies. They then contacted the company that rightfully owned the trademark and demanded a huge “ransom” in exchange for releasing the domain name to the company. This nefarious practice quickly became labeled as “cybersquatting,” the online version of occupation without permission or rightful ownership.

Cybersquatting Is Illegal

In the United States, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) was enacted in 1999 to protect trademark owners from the dubious actions of cybersquatters. This federal law prohibits the practice of registering domain names (including common misspellings) that either match or closely resemble trademarked names with the intention of selling these domains to the rightful trademark owner for a profit.

Also prohibited under this law is the practice of registering a domain name to cause brand confusion, as well as profiting from ads placed on sites that gain misdirected traffic as a result of cybersquatiing. Domain buyers found guilty under the ACPA can be charged with up to $100,000 in damages per domain name held.

An International Problem

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, it has received more than 20,000 complaints about illegally registered domain names worldwide since the adoption of the internationally recognized Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in 1999. The WIPO reports that cybersquatting complaints continue to rise, with 28 percent more cases opened by the agency in 2010 compared to the previous year.

In 2007, Dell Inc. launched a major U.S. lawsuit against domain registrars over “typosquatting,” the registration of domain names that are slight misspellings of trademarked names. Verizon has recently filed a $1.83 million dollar suit against Above.com, an Australia-based domain parking company, for cybersquatting.

Celebrities Targeted

Celebrities have been targeted by cybersquatters since the invention of the Internet, with such notables as Madonna, Bruce Springsteen and Jennifer Lopez coming under attack. Most companies and high-powered celebrities fight back against the squatters. One such example is NBA star Chris Bosh. His landmark domain name cybersquatting case granted him custody of nearly 800 domain names connected to celebrities and athletes, which Bosh returned to the rightful owners for free both in a display of morality and to promote Bosh’s social media firm, Max Deal.

The Harvard Law School reports that with the exception of one case, “no cybersquatter has won a court case against an intellectual property holder” worldwide. The trend in case law is clearly against cybersquatters, although that has not prevented new instances from arising.

Domain Name Investing Is Not Cybersquatting

Cybersquatters have given domain investing a bad reputation, fueled by the frenzy of media that usually surrounds high-profile cybersquatting cases. As a result, the public often confuses legitimate domain investors with unsavory Internet speculators.

Domain investing in generic or geographically based domain names is a perfectly respectable and legal practice. Many law-abiding citizens have developed viable businesses by buying and selling non-trademark-related domain names. Domain name investing, like other legitimate businesses, requires discipline and expertise. Domain investors must continually review the value of their holdings in comparison to the cost of domain renewal fees. Savvy investors work hard to monitor global trends and consumer patterns to make sound financial choices with their domain name portfolio.

Legal Domain Investing

Honest domain investors looking to avoid any legal trouble should make sure they are well versed in all the relevant laws and regulations. These include the ACPA, WIPO regulations, and policies of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By respecting intellectual property laws and avoiding any domain names that might be connected to a trademark, domain investors will develop a reputation as credible and ethical businesspeople while avoiding costly litigation.

More About…

Keywords:
Companies:
People:

Leave a Reply

Comments should be respectful and on-topic. Read our full comment policy (opens in new window). Comments may be moderated; if not posted immediately, it is awaiting review and will be posted soon.

 

9 Responses to “Cybersquatting: Giving the Domain Name Industry a Bad Name”

  1. Leif says:

    “Giving the Domain Name Industry a Bad Name”

    Domain Investing wasn’t ‘given’ a bad name, it was completely unethical to begin with. The author can twist it any way they want, but there is no legitimate reason to do this. Domain investing isn’t like investing in a new company or town. The only people who gain from “Domain Investing” are the “investors” themselves. It’s a complete scam, and the practice should be illegal.

    1. By that logic, any type of speculation is unethical.

  2. Kris says:

    “Domain investing” a respectable business? Yes, and buying all the concert tickets and selling them at 100 times the original price is also a respectable business.

    These shady companies are making it incredibly hard for startups, and are completely blocking the economy.

    I can’t believe this is still legal… sad.

    1. Hi Kris,

      The purpose of this article was cybersquatting, which has a specific legal definition. It’s against the law to register domain names (including common misspellings) that either match or closely resemble trademarked names with the intention of selling these domains to the rightful trademark owner for a profit.

      Scalping concert tickets is different from long term investing in an appreciating asset.

      For those that came to America and invested in land in New York city decades ago — but did nothing with it, just waiting for the land to appreciate — they had the vision, paid their dues (taxes, etc.), and benefited from the increase in value. The same is true for domain names.

      There are thousands of new gTLDs that have recently entered the market (.tech, .media, .app, .blog, .accountant, .photo, etc.), allowing entrepreneurs like you and I to acquire domain names directly from the registry, rather than buying from individual investors.

      You’re in control. It’s your choice.

      Best wishes to you in your journey. If there’s anything I can personally do for you to help you acquire the domain name you want, please reach out to me via http://www.domainsherpa.com/contact/.

      Best regards,
      Michael

      1. Kris says:

        Hi Michael,

        I realise the article was mainly about cybersquatting, but it also states that contrary to cybersquatting, “domain investing is a reputable business”. My reply is related to that section.

        You’re right, there are many new TLD’s available at the moment. I tried one, and the results were horrible. So you have an app called “Snoozer” (fictional), and register snoozer.app. You will lose at least 50% of returning visitors, because they will always try “snoozer.com” first.

        Losing half of your customers because you don’t have the .com is simply not an option. And I don’t see this changing any time soon.

        You can defend those “investors” and indeed they are legal. But is it ethical? The internet shouldn’t be someone’s property. Everyone should get a chance to get their place. And I don’t mean “snoozerweb883.com”, because that’s not a fair chance.

        You may call it capitalism, I will call it greedy and unethical.

  3. Tisha says:

    It is unethical no matter how you look at it or what fancy term you give it. It has made it very difficult for me to start my small business.

  4. Maple Leaf says:

    Domain name “investing” is really extortion. Buying up desirable domain names and then reselling them at exorbitant prices hurts people trying to get their businesses up and running. It’s all about greed.

  5. Mike says:

    Dell needs to focus on making better computers rather than suing squatters.

  6. TJ says:

    Domain investing is NOT cybersquatting. Agreed. But there are bad seeds within every apple that make the entire apple look rotten.

Domaining magazine site recommended by Domaining.com
Copyright © 2010-2016 DomainSherpa. All rights reserved. Reproduction without explicit permission is prohibited.
About  |  Advertising  |  Affiliate Links  |  Disclaimer  |  Disclosures  |  Privacy  |  Terms  |  Contact Us
Want a Proven System for Domain Name Investing?

DomainSherpa founder and publisher Michael Cyger created the ultimate accelerated learning system for domain name investing. Want a $50 discount coupon?

Sign up for the DomainSherpa newsletter below.

PLUS, you'll receive a free copy of the ebook entitled "Turning a $12,750 Profit on One Domain Name in 6 Months."

Free "$12,750 Profit" eBook. Click Here.