People who register TM names and TM typos are stealing from us

[filter]

... in 1994 I worked for a neurologist who had a "nintendo epilepsy" patient - a 12 year old girl who had seizures triggered by the flicker from cheap computer displays - "photosensitive" epilepsy - actually fairly rare.

we studied her EEG while she watched different size & frequency patterns so we could identify "pre-seizure" brainwaves (and then stop the display so not to actually trigger a serious episode). we found that higher contrast + brightness of display made a difference as well as the rate of flicker and size of the stripes in the pattern, and some other interesting details ...

fortunately at least 2 good things for the patient came out of this - first just a simple suggestion for her to wear sunglasses when looking at computer screens (to reduce brightness + contrast) - and second, she learned to recognize subtle signs of pre-seizure state (as we confirmed from the EEG) and learned to look away or close her eyes to avoid having a real seizure.

anyway .... interesting to see - sure enough - nintendoepilepsy.com (regged since December 2005) parked via oversee.net - also nintendonitis.com (regged since July 2007) parked at GoDaddy.

a quick google shows Nintendo used to be fairly quick to sue even for borderline cases such as DK64.com (infringed "donkey kong 64" according to Nintendo) ... but that was 7 years ago.

[Raider]

I realize that TM issues are not always black and white and some names are borderline or otherwise debatable in both ways. In such cases usage can make the difference between good faith or bad faith.

The fact remains that domains are still being sold while they constitute obvious and blatant TM infringements, no questions about it.

Sometimes I just get the feeling that these discussions aim to legitimize behaviors that are nonetheless hard to defend if you want to be taken seriously in the outside world.
There are two aspects to be considered in this: the ethical part (where you personally draw the line) and the legal part (when you cross the line and find yourself to be in clear violation of existing laws and regulations).
We can discuss about ethics, but there is not ample room for discussion when you step outside the boundaries of the law.
So yes I think we are too complacent.

Very well said Kate.

[Thomas Nash]

Theres been a lot of discussion recently about whether registering TM names is right or wrong. If there is money to be made in something, people will do it... Whether its people trafficking, drug dealing etc. or infringing a companys trademark, if theres money to be made, you'll almost always find people doing it.

So whether its considered to be right or wrong, it will still happen because there is money to be made.

[StockDoctor]

No matter how many times the issue comes up, the answers are the same.

Squatters and Domainers are NOT the same thing. Some squatters also participate in legitimate domaining. It's important for the domainer industry to disassociate itself from the activities of squatters asap.

Squatting is NOT that difficult to spot, no matter the continued smoke and mirrors layed out by the participants. Pointing out extreme examples like Apple etc. does NOT excuse squatters in their blanket coverage of blatant infringement.

TM squatting hurts the acceptance and advancement of the domaining business. It's very selfish for squatters to profit personally thru the diversion and theft of traffic while at the same time knowingly giving the overall domain business a black eye. That seeminess causes corporate end users to hesitate on purchase. No loss to the squatters of course who are NOT for the most part attempting to sell their wares to end users anyway.

The excuses put forth by squatters that "everyone does it" is baloney. It may have been, or may still be more difficult to be successful running a "clean" domaining business, but don't expect pats on the back for diverting funds into your own pockets due to the sweat off the back of the brand holder.

The point that if the squatters weren't doing it, then the likes of Microsoft or Google browser control would pick up the slack. That they are doing the same thing may be true, but that doesn't mean it's ok for the squatters. In fact if there weren't any domain squatters, maybe the heat would turn back onto the giants and generic domains and legitimate websites would reap the rewards of higher values.

The idea that Google, Yahoo or the rest of the domaining industry would fall apart if not for squatters is also baloney. As any business analyst would tell you, it's a "zero" 0 sum game folks. It is my opinion that by removing the low road from this market, the high road would be more widely traveled and our domain industry move at a much faster pace without being dragged down by the media.

================================================== ==========
Disclaimer:
The reason this stands out to me is because my biz model has always been based on sales and not parking. I deal with the buyers and from my vantage, it's pretty clear to see how our domain industry reputation is being dragged thru the mud by the actions of the squatters. That doesn't help me when trying to sell your name to an end user. Of course I'll never be selling a squatted name to endusers anyway so why would the squatters care?

[stuff]

No matter how many times the issue comes up, the answers are the same.

Squatters and Domainers are NOT the same thing. Some squatters also participate in legitimate domaining. It's important for the domainer industry to disassociate itself from the activities of squatters asap.

Squatting is NOT that difficult to spot, no matter the continued smoke and mirrors layed out by the participants. Pointing out extreme examples like Apple etc. does NOT excuse squatters in their blanket coverage of blatant infringement.

TM squatting hurts the acceptance and advancement of the domaining business. It's very selfish for squatters to profit personally thru the diversion and theft of traffic while at the same time knowingly giving the overall domain business a black eye. That seeminess causes corporate end users to hesitate on purchase. No loss to the squatters of course who are NOT for the most part attempting to sell their wares to end users anyway.

The excuses put forth by squatters that "everyone does it" is baloney. It may have been, or may still be more difficult to be successful running a "clean" domaining business, but don't expect pats on the back for diverting funds into your own pockets due to the sweat off the back of the brand holder.

The point that if the squatters weren't doing it, then the likes of Microsoft or Google browser control would pick up the slack. That they are doing the same thing may be true, but that doesn't mean it's ok for the squatters. In fact if there weren't any domain squatters, maybe the heat would turn back onto the giants and generic domains and legitimate websites would reap the rewards of higher values.

The idea that Google, Yahoo or the rest of the domaining industry would fall apart if not for squatters is also baloney. As any business analyst would tell you, it's a "zero" 0 sum game folks. It is my opinion that by removing the low road from this market, the high road would be more widely traveled and our domain industry move at a much faster pace without being dragged down by the media.

================================================== ==========
Disclaimer:
The reason this stands out to me is because my biz model has always been based on sales and not parking. I deal with the buyers and from my vantage, it's pretty clear to see how our domain industry reputation is being dragged thru the mud by the actions of the squatters. That doesn't help me when trying to sell your name to an end user. Of course I'll never be selling a squatted name to endusers anyway so why would the squatters care?

Look who speaks again.
Squatter number 1 stock
anyway you got nerves
Do you really think that if there would be no squat money, someone actually would buy your .us domains or .info domains?

[StockDoctor]

Look who speaks again.
Squatter number 1 stock
anyway you got nerves
Do you really think that if there would be no squat money, someone actually would buy your .us domains or .info domains?

What, I hit a nerve again with whoever it is behind the mask from ping pong land or wherever? Can you you tell us Stuff why it is you think you can say something meaningful while having to hide your identity and location for years? I own and have sold more .coms than any other extension, but that really isn't the topic here is it Stuff. The thread topic (I thought you could read english?) is "People who register TM names and TM typos are stealing from us" so lets go with that huh? You want to argue the merits of .US or .info then start another thread Mr./Ms. squatter.

[stuff]

What, I hit a nerve again with whoever it is behind the mask from ping pong land or wherever? Can you you tell us Stuff why it is you think you can say something meaningful while having to hide your identity and location for years? I own and have sold more .coms than any other extension, but that really isn't the topic here is it Stuff. The thread topic (I thought you could read english?) is "People who register TM names and TM typos are stealing from us" so lets go with that huh? You want to argue the merits of .US or .info then start another thread Mr./Ms. squatter.

well whatever ext domains, do you really think you would have sold that much without squat money? You really think so?
if so, you really miss one or two basic economy laws.
just curious what % you say off all parking money comes from squatting?

[StockDoctor]

well whatever ext domains, do you really think you would have sold that much without squat money? You really think so?

OK, since that's a bit on topic, I'd estimate that out of over 14,000 domain transactions to date, my guess would be that about 500 (tops) was from squatter money. The reason I'm pretty sure is that only a very small number are put out to the wholesale market via the forums etc. where I'm more likely to sell to unfamiliar people. Most of my sales are in blocks "privately" with domainers I've known for years. The others (mostly coms) are to end users piecemeal and they're no squatters.

Again, from the points made earlier, if the squatting money went away, it would be picked up in gains elsewhere within our industry. IMO higher CPC, CPA advertising revenue, higher generic domain sales etc. 0 sum game remember? We'd all just be a little cleaner.

just curious what % you say off all parking money comes from squatting?

you added this a little later in an edit after I had already responded but to answer your question, I don't know and don't care. I'd just as soon parking had some motivation to make their pages something more than just commercials on the big TV of the Internet. Either they add something of value other than pure ads and get rid of the TM typo crap or they get off the Net all together. I could do very well without parking.

[stuff]

OK, since that's a bit on topic, I'd estimate that out of over 14,000 domain transactions to date, my guess would be that about 500 (tops) was from squatter money. The reason I'm pretty sure is that only a very small number are put out to the wholesale market via the forums etc. where I'm more likely to sell to unfamiliar people. Most of my sales are in blocks "privately" with domainers I've known for years. The others (mostly coms) are to end users piecemeal and they're no squatters.

Again, from the points made earlier, if the squatting money went away, it would be picked up in gains elsewhere within our industry. IMO higher CPC, CPA advertising revenue, higher generic domain sales etc. 0 sum game remember? We'd all just be a little cleaner.

you added this a little later in an edit after I had already responded but to answer your question, I don't know and don't care. I'd just as soon parking had some motivation to make their pages something more than just commercials on the big TV of the Internet. Either they add something of value other than pure ads and get rid of the TM typo crap or they get off the Net all together. I could do very well without parking.

You got to open your eyes.

[katherine]

From my (limited) sampling it's pretty clear that domaining has a bad press.

The so-called 'serious' news sources typically mix domainers and cybersquatter interchangeably. When you point them to their mistake they don't seem to like it, actually they don't want to admit they could be wrong... actually you get flamed for defending domaining, because in their eyes you are just another profiteer.
The journalists from the mainstream press think they know it all better than everyone else, even when they have no knowledge of the domain aftermarket. You could think the webmasters are a bit more aware but they are pretty much the same mold it seems.

Media coverage is less than flattering too.
When the abuse from Verisign or ICANN's incompetence make it to the headlines this further strengthens the idea that our industry is shady and ruled by crooks. We are paying for the cybersquatters and for the misconduct of so-called Internet bodies.

So I think we have a long way to go until our industry is viewed as legitimate business - if that ever happens. What we could do to try moving the industry in the right direction:
1. distance ourselves from the cybersquatters
2. increased representation either thru increased pressure on Icann for example, or joining ICA to make our voice heard. I am undecided on ICA but I think we really need an organization like that to lobby on our behalf. This could be a step in the right direction.

[Raider]

If you want to reduce TM typosquatting, one good place to start is with the upstream providers that allow them.... Cut out the revenue and you cut out the problem.

[StockDoctor]

If you want to reduce TM typosquatting, one good place to start is with the upstream providers that allow them.... Cut out the revenue and you cut out the problem.

Agree. One problem though is that the parking or brokerage companies are not just monetizing TM stuff, they are often guilty of squatting themselves. They'll swear they aren't, and deny some low traffic TM infringing names but are loathe to turn back the real revenue generators. Then we're suppose to look to the ICA for leadership and their new anti TM squatting policy when their founding members are being sued for the same stuff?

[katherine]

If you want to reduce TM typosquatting, one good place to start is with the upstream providers that allow them.... Cut out the revenue and you cut out the problem.

Problem is, they don't monitor all the names. If they did they would catch the most obvious typo squats but many would slip through the cracks because it's not always obvious at first sight whether a name has TM issues or not, and it could depend on use.

I am not surprised that the big corporations like m$ are now suing, they must be hoping that the prospect of heavy damage will deter squatters. It remains to be seen whether this strategy will pay off.

Then we're suppose to look to the ICA for leadership and their new anti TM squatting policy when their founding members are being sued for the same stuff?

Any info on that ? I'd like to dig