Dotster named in massive cybersquatting suit

[webset32]

Taken from news.com:
june 2:

A new federal lawsuit charges that Dotster, one of the largest domain name registrars, has unlawfully participated in a massive cybersquatting campaign targeting companies such as Cingular Wireless, Disney, Ikea, Google, Neiman Marcus, Playboy and Verizon.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday by high-end retailers Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, alleges that Dotster abused its status as a registrar by "checking out" hundreds of domain names that closely resemble the correct ones--and then keeping only the ones that were visited by Web users who couldn't spell very well.

The misspelled domain name NeimuMarcus.com, when visited by CNET News.com on Thursday evening, included code in its Web page that references Dotster and its subsidiary RevenueDirect.com--and featured advertisements for Neiman Marcus rivals such as Bloomingdales and JCrew. By early Friday, however, that Web site and dozens more had been taken offline.

Cybersquatting, the practice of registering domain names that may violate a company's trademark, is hardly new--it's been around for more than a decade. Also called typosquatting, it's led to high-profile spats such as Apple Computer's successful attempt to claim iTunes.co.uk and Canadian teenager Mike Rowe's registration of MikeRoweSoft.com.

But this Dotster lawsuit involves allegations of a new twist on the concept: a registrar using its special status with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to secure misspelled domains temporarily for a few days, measure the traffic, and then pay for only the ones that would be lucrative in terms of advertising.

Dotster did not respond to repeated messages left on Friday with its legal department and two other employees.

Complete article: HERE

[SouthernTn]

wow.. I use to user Dotster a while ago.. Its actually where I bought my first domain

[brian1234]

...bet IREIT are 'cock a hoop' about
that one.

[GeorgeK]

Bret Fausett has posted a copy of the Statement of Claim on his blog:

http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archiv...3/2004116.html

BTW, might be nice if this thread was in the Legal section of DNForum.

[RatherGood]

This should get interesting. Bob Parsons just called out DirectNIC on his blog for domain tasting.

[jdk]

I am sure they all do it.

[GeorgeK]

To my knowledge, Tucows, NSI, Register.com, GoDaddy and others don't do it.

[jdk]

Hard to say. I'd say most aren't but its hard to tell. It is actually pretty funny as this has happened to me. I used GoDaddy to look for a domain name in the past. The next day the domain was reg'd. I was like WTF (b/c this was an off the wall domain name). Several days laters I was like heck lets try again. To my surprise the domain was available. Doesn't mean GD does it as when you search I believe it pings other registrar's but if I recall the whois did state it was registered at Godaddy.

[RatherGood]

Hard to say. I'd say most aren't but its hard to tell. It is actually pretty funny as this has happened to me. I used GoDaddy to look for a domain name in the past. The next day the domain was reg'd. I was like WTF (b/c this was an off the wall domain name). Several days laters I was like heck lets try again. To my surprise the domain was available. Doesn't mean GD does it as when you search I believe it pings other registrar's but if I recall the whois did state it was registered at Godaddy.

I think GoDaddy was accused of selling whois logs to DomainCar. Sounds kind of far fetched, even for GD.

[Ian]

but i've several questions and comments at the moment:
1. what impact and implications would the outcome of such a high profile case have on those domainers who own typos? I think typos regardless of who registars them would become untouchables in the very near future.
2. with the case in point we might have repercussions for a registrar for acting on behalf of a client. this is bound to lead us into the next level where almost no registrar will accept to register typos (depending on ICANN's regulations)
maybe somebody tell me whether such fears might be well founded
thanks

[BobDiGiTaL]

To my knowledge, Tucows, NSI, Register.com, GoDaddy and others don't do it.

What is TDNAM?
Aren't they a sister company/auctioner of "publicly wanted" domains that Godaddy has control of?
If Godaddy wasn't monitoring traffic, wouldn't they just let those domains drop?
The only reason they "re-register" a domain that has dropped is to sell it and make $$$$, not as a kind gesture so the original owner will have more time to recognize his/her domain has dropped.

[GeorgeK]

TDNAM is expired domains, plus others that the owner listed for sale. That's quite different than the "domain tasting" / "domain kiting" that goes on.

[DNjet]

but i've several questions and comments at the moment:
1. what impact and implications would the outcome of such a high profile case have on those domainers who own typos? I think typos regardless of who registars them would become untouchables in the very near future.
2. with the case in point we might have repercussions for a registrar for acting on behalf of a client. this is bound to lead us into the next level where almost no registrar will accept to register typos (depending on ICANN's regulations)
maybe somebody tell me whether such fears might be well founded
thanks

How is a registrar supposed to figure out if someone is registering a typo or not? can't be done.

[jberryhill]

How is a registrar supposed to figure out if someone is registering a typo or not? can't be done.

Registrars are specifically exempted from liability for cybersquatting, so long as (a) the registrar is itself not the one doing the cybersquatting, and (b) the registrar implements a reasonable trademark dispute policy.

Condition (b) is satisfied by the UDRP (as confirmed in a couple of court decisions in the first and fourth judicial circuits). There has not yet been a case where condition (a) was shown.

Dotster should tote up the actual revenue relating to these marks, multiply by 3X, throw attorney's fees on top, and then opt for mandatory court-sponsored ADR.

[GeorgeK]

Given the amount of time and effort that went into the complaint, it's my guess that the complainants aren't going to settle for costs, but are looking to make a bold statement and shoot for statutory damages in the millions. Maybe a mid-6 figure private settlement might satisfy them.

The complainant is a sophisticated player (look at the fact that their licensing arm is based in Nevada, for tax purposes) and well financed. They know they've got Dotster by the short hairs. Dotster should count themselves lucky that this isn't a class action suit, as they'd be facing bankruptcy due to the statutory damages that would be applicable.

[StockDoctor]

Dotster should count themselves lucky that this isn't a class action suit, as they'd be facing bankruptcy due to the statutory damages that would be applicable.

Would love to see it happen. Actually I think that's the next thing we'll see. A class action against a unasi (domaincar) and maybe a tie-in to a registrar or auction house.

Bet this sends chills thru the TM typosquatting industry.

[jberryhill]

make a bold statement and shoot for statutory damages in the millions.

Anything other than actual damages is entirely within the judge's discretion. I count 27 domain names. That's 2.7M if the judge believes that the conscious intent of using an automated registration system is on par with Zuccarini pointing terms like "dinsey" at porn.

[GeorgeK]

27 names for these complainants, but the appendices demonstrate lots of similar typo domains for other TM holders not a party to the suit. Thus, a judge or jury (do Washington State juries set damages in civil cases like this?) might want to set a high penalty, as a deterrent.

Of course, 95% of cases will never make it to trial, so we'll likely never know what they privately settle for in this case.

[DNWizardX9]

I'm not even sure if Dotster is to blame...

we all know Scott Fish(he's the owner of one of those domains)... He is a member of DNForum etc (fishseo.com personal blog) and has bought many domains. He does work for Dotster. It looks like he was selling some of his personal names and probably told the person he was selling to that he worked for dotster. Thus piecework put it together that Dotster was behind the whole scam while it looks like Scott was selling his personal names on his time off.

[typeins]

Makes me glad that we dont own any typos.. Typo owners should be worried though, especially those who knowingly go after well known brands and register multiple typo versions of trademarks..

I doubt a mom and pop domainer would have to worry too much if they own 1-2 typos, but those who's portfolios are chocked full of them should probably be very worried about the outcome of this