Is TM typosquatting ok?

[StockDoctor]

Please get back to topic and stop insulting each other.

Otherwise the thread will be closed.

Thank you.

Aye Aye sir -- I'd like to get back to the topic too.

 

[denny007]

BTW if the "Skipper" is in reference what I have on the head: http://buff.es/

 

[fundraiser]

I agree with that lunatic Stocdoctor. I applaud those who have tried to present a case for their own position on tm-typos as being ok. I disagree with much of the logic or rationale but they did not make it personal. Let’s keep it focused on the domain business issues that arise from tm typo-squatting.

It seems to me that typo-squatting on a tm is a practice that, when challenged legally, more often than not results in a domain being transferred to the tm holder. The reason is because in viewing the law, these domains are interpreted to have been registered solely to profit off of someone else’s intellectual property and done so in a way that violates that law.

The arguments about looking for one restaurant and instead finding another are misguided. Try to open a restaurant named McDonold's next to a McDonald's and it would never happen. If McDonold's was not really a restaurant but instead going inside led you to other merchants who were competitors of McDonald's you would still have trouble. If you open a Burger King on the same street because you know that McDonald’s would not open shop without considering it a favorable business area, it is legal. If you choose to compete with a similar product under a name that is not confusingly similar then it is ok. That is called competition.

Trademark holders aren't expected to trademark all similar names nor is it allowed. While the trademark holder may be allowed to register most possible trademark typos as domains, the courts apparently consider that a business should not have to take all possible defenses to illegal activity and so in deciding civil cases courts and arbitrators try to establish between right and wrong. It seems to me both have made enough judgments about right and wrong, legal and illegal in this area that a person of reasonable intelligence could understand the gist of the difference.

That does not mean that person will choose to do what is right often because doing what is wrong has little financial consequence to them usually resulting at worst in the loss of a domain name. But by the time that happens they have made enough to financially justify the risk. What needs to change is the social and business stigma attached to operating on the fringes because the domain industry will continue to get a black eye from those who rationalize their actions as being “ok” and who view losing a domain decision on legal grounds as simply being a cost of doing business.

As has been suggested in another thread, perhaps the dropping of all those tm typo-squatting domains this week is the result of a business decision not to operate either unethically, illegally or both. Maybe it resulted as a demand of a legitimate an ethical business wanting to invest in the domain industry without putting itself at risk. Who knows about that particular situation, but I bet venture capital firms and other investors bringing new money into the industry will also start cleaning it up.

The entire domain industry is hurt by cyber squatters and trademark violators (typo or not) and their actions reflect poorly on others in the industry by association. We can coddle them and look the other way or we can speak-out and call it what it is. I do not know of legitimate industry that that is so quick to turn a blind eye to trademark law, copyright law and business ethics in general like the domain industry. It is as if the anonymity of a computer screen makes it all ok.

If we don’t start to hold colleagues in the industry to higher standards than are currently accepted, people will continue to view the domain industry in a negative light. And if you don't think that is a problem, consider that more legitimate generic domains are lost in WIPO decisions as a result of the poor reputation the industry has gotten from those who squat than for any other reason.

 

[JuniperPark]

StocDoctor and Fundraiser -

Please read my post with 3 'real world' scenarios. Each scenario essentially matches the online typo situation.

Do you agree that all 3 should cause lawsuits, or not?

 

[fundraiser]

StocDoctor and Fundraiser -

Please read my post with 3 'real world' scenarios. Each scenario essentially matches the online typo situation.

Do you agree that all 3 should cause lawsuits, or not?

JuniperPark,
Those would not cause lawsuits but respectfully, I do not believe what you have described at all matches the tm typo-squatting situation. Perhaps if you elaborated on the comparison it would be more clear to me.

SCENARIO #1
A friend recommends a great Chinese restaurant on Main Street, "China House". You decide to go, head down Main Street, see a nice looking new Chinese restaurant, pull in, have dinner, and it's good. But it's "China Wall"; China House was further down the street. You don't realize till the next day you were at the wrong place.

By your rules, China Wall should sue Chine House for "stealing", when in fact China Wall simply chose a better location (more traffic, closer to the freeway).

Chinese restaurant is a generic so that scenario is not based on a brand. That would be like your friend saying he likes Chinese food and you could find one searching on main street. The equivalent is entering chineseresteraunt .com and finding a Chinese restaurant named China Wall.

Here is that scenario in tm-typo squatting terms:
A friend recommends China House (name) on Main Street (.com). You go to Main Street (.com) and look up quickly to see China Hoouse but you don't see the one letter difference. You eat there because you think it is China House, a business that has built a great following but is one block away on main. China Hoouse could and likely would be sued.

SCENARIO #2

Similar to above, except you KNOW you're not at the right restaurant but cannot seem to find China House. You give up looking and enjoy a meal at China Wall.

Are we still suing?

Yes, you could / likely would be sued under my interpretation above.

SCENARIO #3

Another (real) example. We're heading for Squid Roe (a bar) in Cabo San Lucas. Along the way, we pass another bar, and the doorman shouts to us "first round of drinks free!". We go in, stay, and never get to Squid Roe.

By your theory, Squid Roe could sue the cheaper bar.

My scenario based on above reasoning:
You are heading for Squid Roe, look up and see Squid Rue and go inside only to realize you made a mistake. The door men says stay, we too have what you are looking for and have cheaper prices. Squid Roe is right down the street and sees the competitor has set up shop and realizes what it is doing.

Squid Roe would sue and likely win.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Subjectivity and debate are anathema. The fact of this matter is that there a wide range of diverse circumstances that will lend credibility to both sides of this argument. I don't know why it's continuing here.

 

[denny007]

My another 2 cents:
Domain business as I see it is composited from following segments:
1.
Typo domains - any typo of any existing internet project (does not matter if TM or not TM), is unethical.
2.
Dropping domains - if someone forgets to renew his domain and someone catch it, it is unethical too. I do not see much different between someone forgot to renew his domain and companies forgetting to register for few bucks their typos.
3.
Registering NEW domains (not typos) - I would say all possible good and so-so domains are distributed already. Moastly rubbish remains unregged recently. If some new fashinable items/words appear, it is very likely to be TM in some way (i.e. earth google).

4.
Buying and selling (trading) domains. This is starting to be more like stock market - more as gambling than serious business.

So if we strike out all "unethical" domaining, the domain business practically dismiss. Because recently #1 and #2 makes 90 or more % od domain sales.

PS:
To register a domain and build some project on it - it is NOT domaining, it is just internet project building.

I don't know why it's continuing here.

Because it is FORUM here maybe ?

 

[StockDoctor]

Subjectivity and debate are anathema. The fact of this matter is that there a wide range of diverse circumstances that will lend credibility to both sides of this argument. I don't know why it's continuing here.

The only credibility for the pro trademark typo crowd is that it makes money. That's like saying it's ok to rob the corner store cause there's money in it.

The "wide range of diverse circumstances" are ALL just self serving bullchit, that the typosquatter makes up to "justify" or "excuse" the unethical practice.

It's really simple. Typosquatting is the intentional (bad faith) theft of revenue through misdirection of traffic. That's it folks. If the name was regged or purchased to try to capture error traffic intended for some tradmark name, then that is what's called "Bad faith". They use the term 'Bad" for a reason.

Some Domainers actually pass up the unethical practice and the money to work harder to create an honest business. Stinks that they are still given a bad rap because of the actions of some slimeballs. These same typosquatter theives openly trade in their wares and pat themselves on the back for success in ripping off someone else. I for one hope they frickin choke on the dough, and no matter how much money they make, I know they took the easy route and are really just pond scum. Any idgit can make money thru theft.

 

[denny007]

Behind every great fortune there is a crime.
Honore de Balzac

Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
Howard Scott

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Now Doc, don't get out of your pram. The "wide range" is obvious -- you only have to re-read some of the daft posts in this thread. Are you suggesting that a typo of 'shoes.com' is unethical? Please consider what I wrote before penning your quips. Do you know how many shades there are between black and white? I'm not buying your soap box approach. I had some sympathy for your stance, but it seems you're not listening to anyone else's viewpoint.

Hey, I regged all variations of theroyalregimentofscotland.com/co.uk/others when it was announced that some Scottish regiments were going to be amalgamated. The Regimental Colonel called me and asked me for them and of course I gave them free.

Don't place me in the wrong camp.

 

[StockDoctor]

Now Doc, don't get out of your pram. The "wide range" is obvious -- you only have to re-read some of the daft posts in this thread. Are you suggesting that a typo of 'shoes.com' is unethical? Please consider what I wrote before penning your quips. Do you know how many shades there are between black and white? I'm not buying your soap box approach. I had some sympathy for your stance, but it seems you're not listening to anyone else's viewpoint.

Hey, I regged all variations of theroyalregimentofscotland.com/co.uk/others when it was announced that some Scottish regiments were going to be amalgamated. The Regimental Colonel called me and asked me for them and of course I gave them free.

Don't place me in the wrong camp.

Sometimes getting on the soapbox is a good thing and I'm pushing for the no-bullchit black or white stance.

I'm addressing trademark typosquatting with "bad faith" intent as defined in my last post. Those that use the "shades" defense run off the mark and include their own definitions to confuse or justify their actions. Don't get lost in the arguments as to whether this or that word is a valid "trademark" or not. That argument can go on forever. Also, does even a trademark apply at some date or in some cases. Is it a generic that even though trademarked for a particular class or use, is fine to use in it's pure form (or typo) when the "intent" is NOT to steal traffic? The obvious example is "Apple" which is trademarked in certain classes. Is it ok to use the domain "Apple" (or typos) to sell those things in the trees? Sure, but if you regged a typo with the 'Bad Faith" intention of misdirecting traffic from Apple Computers, plug it on a ppc page with ads from Dell, then you're a slimeball typosquatter and giving the rest of us a bad name.

Keep it simple (KIS) Typosquatter -- Did you reg the typo of a trademark with the "bad faith" intent to siphen off or misdirect traffic from it's intended and trademarked destination?

Note: I address the issue, from my soapbox Zoo, when I say "you" I'm not implying or directing my comments at you personally. Same with past posts that some take as personal and not meant that way. oh, and I have re-read some of the "daft" posts.

 

[mole]

Semantic rope swinging is a wonderful thing. They twist seemingly straightforward situations out of context to original intent and meaning.

Deliberated typo squatters tend to exhibit a very obvious and consistent pattern in the way they register names. They leave a fingerprint so big that even a first year law undergrad can profile their intent like a walker on broadway. Look at this example;

The disputed domain names <britannicaonlinemexico.com>, <britenicaencyclopaedia.com>, <brittaniaencyclopedia.com>, <enciclopediabritannica.com>, <encyclopediabertanica.com>, <encyclopediabrittanica.com>, <sbritannica.com>, <schooleb.com>, <searcheb.com>, and <supportbritannica.com>

Does your domain portfolio exhibit clear and consistent vulture feeding patterns like these? If so, don't be surprised if you get a WIPO or law suite in the coming months and years. One would say, the lawyers too have noticed some nice vulture feeding opportunities in domain names.

hmmmm, didn't know WIPO was a daily affair...
http://www.domain-disputes.com/recent-decisions.htm

 

[Anthony Ng]

Is TM typosquatting ok?

Of course NOT, regardless of any futile rhetoric.

For starters (not Stocdoctor), ask your lawyers or check out WIPO's UDRP decision archives.

 

[denny007]

So - why all typos are hopeleselly taken and those dropping recently from Laporte Holdings portfolio are auctioned for such big money...

 

[Anthony Ng]

I guess a smarter question to ask here is: why they were dropped in the first place?

 

[StockDoctor]

Some guys just steal your money, but these guys steal your name.

Vinny from "My Blue Heaven"