Is there a law that pertains to this

[jag5311]

I think I have heard of a law regarding this issue, but I am unsure. Lets say someone buys the domain yhoo.com (im sure its taken) and their intentions are to grab people that mispell yahoo.com, is that illegal. I think it is.

Thanks
jag5311

 

[Whois-Search]

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/index.html

 

[jag5311]

I checked out those websites, but since my legal jargon knowledge isn't so great, I had trouble finding one that pertained to what I believe is called Cybersquatting? I think

thanks
bryan

 

[Whois-Search]

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/60EC3491-B4B5-4A98-BB6E6632A2FA0CB2

 

[jag5311]

Thanks WHOIS search

That helped alot

bryan

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html

Go to (d) Cyberpiracy prevention

 

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by jag5311
I checked out those websites, but since my legal jargon knowledge isn't so great, I had trouble finding one that pertained to what I believe is called Cybersquatting? I think

thanks
bryan

The key difference between domain speculation and cybersquatting or in this case 'typosquatting" is intent. If you register a typo of a common name that doesn't make sense in itself, it would be fairly easy to make a case of bad faith and trademark dilution which can put you in the hot seat.

I recommend avoiding it unless you have lots of money and good lawyers.

 

[draqon]

you can typo squat, as long as you do it in a clever way. for example, someone owned Merrilynch.com, an obvious mispelling of Merrillynch (i spelled that wrong, but thats not the point). Anyway, he created a website about a girl he named Merri Lynch, and therefore WIPO let him keep the name. So you can sometimes bluff WIPO into letting you keep obvious mispellings if you are smart.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"The key difference between domain speculation and cybersquatting or in this case 'typosquatting" is intent. "

------

Nail. Head. Bang.

Sometimes I get inquiries from folks about domain names who seem mystified when, while I am asking questions to get the basic facts, I ask, "Why did you register the domain name?"

When the answer is "Whaddya mean?", that's when I begin to wonder whether this person would ever want to answer a question like that on a witness stand.

General discussions of the type here often boil down to "Can I register a domain name if it is a trademark?" The answer, independent of whether the domain name is a generic word or not, depends on whether the person asking wants to register the domain name *because* it is a trademark (or confusingly similar to one).

It is sort of like asking "If I kill someone, is it against the law?"

Well, there are plenty of legally defensible reasons to kill someone, and there are plenty of illegal reasons to kill someone. But they all boil down to "Why did you kill that person?" Are you a soldier in active duty in battle? Are you the state's executioner? Was it self defense?

The bottom line is that "killing someone" is not illegal, in the absence of other facts. Neither is "registering a trademark as a domain name".

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

And, oh yes, if someone registers yhoo.com with an intent to capture and capitalize from traffic intended for yahoo.com, then they are most certainly cybersquatting - since their reason for registering the domain name is related to the trademark "Yahoo".

However, if someone registers the domain name matress.com with an intent to capture and capitalize from traffic intended for mattress.com - and where the goods and services at issue relate to mattresses, then, no, they are not cybersquatting:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0764.html

They key point there being that "mattress" is not a trademark for mattresses.

 

[dtobias]

There seem to be some UDRP decisions, though, where the panelists seem to be eager to manufacture "bad faith" out of whole cloth, in the complete absence of any evidence that the registrant was targeting the trademark in any way. Quite a number of cases involved generic words that happened to be a trademark in some obscure product category in a different country from where the registrant was located, where it seemed most likely that the name was registered for the generic meaning, not the trademarked meaning, but the panelist did some perfunctory copy-and-paste from other decisions with some line about how "any legitimate use of this domain by other than the trademark owner is inconceivable" and rubber-stamped the victory to the complainant. Even more .biz STOP decisions went that way, as some panelists regarded the act of going forward with a registration despite the existence of an IP claim against it as inherently bad faith without regard to the reasons for wanting the name.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

There will be bad decisions under any process. Most of those, though, are default or otherwise poorly defended cases.

There are panelists who take the view that a default case should result in transfer and, yes, they copy and paste the "bad faith" portion of those decisions. One of the problems arises when people DO respond, but do not point out that those decisions, if relied on in the complaint, were default decisions.

But decisions like the camper.us one last week are pretty outrageous.

 

[HOWARD]

Unless you have a REALLY GOOD business reason for registering YHOO,COM, it WILL be considered typosquatting, which according to various U.S. Federal Courts is equivalent to cybersquatting and the ACPA applies.

My guess is that Yahoo WILL file an action.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Yahoo has been a repeat UDRP customer, and have obtained domain names that were as far off as "yhu.com", although that was registered along with many other typos.

After that one, I wondered whether they would go after the traditional Hebrew NAME of the deity rendered in four characters and referred to as the tetragrammaton.