Microsoft files new cybersquatting charges

[Gerry]

Microsoft files new cybersquatting charges
November 27th, 2008
by David Goldstein

Microsoft has charged a Florida company with cybersquatting in a new lawsuit filed Wednesday reports IDG. In the lawsuit, Microsoft listed 23 domain names that it says are registered to Domain Investments and contain Microsoft trademarks or intentional misspellings of such names.

The domain names, all appearing to be cases of typosquatting, include windoesmobile.com, wwwhotmajl.com, microsoft-games.com and zunedrivers.com. Many of the sites include advertising for various products and services.

Microsoft has asked to be awarded the defendants’ profits from the sites plus damages to be determined at trial, or up to US$100,000 per domain name as well as an injunction against Domain Investments from infringing on Microsoft’s trademarks and from registering any additional URLs that contain Microsoft trademarks or misspellings of them.

To read the IDG article in full, see:

www.networkworld.com/news/2008/112608-microsoft-files-new-cybersquatting.html
www.cio.com/article/466474/Microsoft_Files_New_Cybersquatting_Charges
www.pcworld.com/article/154603/.html

 

[domaingenius]

Pity they did nt try this against European person , as they would lose.

DG

 

[dominator]

is this article old?

according to whois they already own microsoft-games

and i believe they have rights to the word "microsoft" (unlike generic words like "windows")

anyway, using expressions like "registerig URLs" is pretty stupid and journalists who understand what they write should not use them

 

[Sonny Banks]

Bill need some money

 

[Focus]

What idiots are still daring to squat on MS? They deserve it...MS don't play that shiiiiit!

 

[Gerry]

is this article old?

according to whois they already own microsoft-games

and i believe they have rights to the word "microsoft" (unlike generic words like "windows")

anyway, using expressions like "registerig URLs" is pretty stupid and journalists who understand what they write should not use them

The by line has a recent date, but it may be dated prior to publication in the online periodical.

And perhaps the domain was turned over to MS.

Actually, I just looked at the WHOIS myself.

It is very screwy and most likely falsified to through people off.

Take a look closely:

Technical Contact [469717]:
Domain Administrator
One Microsoft Way
Redmond
WA
98052
US
Phone: +1.4258828080

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.DOMAININVESTMENTSLLC.COM 209.188.9.87
NS2.DOMAININVESTMENTSLLC.COM 209.188.9.89

Record created on: 2007-09-20 05:25:35.0
Database last updated on: 2008-09-15 06:12:56.34
Domain Expires on: 2009-09-20 05:25:35.0

Notice the nameservers?

Same name as the defendant - Domain Investments.

I believe this is a slam-dunk for MS.

What idiots are still daring to squat on MS? They deserve it...MS don't play that shiiiiit!

If they read any of the industry news they would have caught wind of MS's slamming the domainer.

And how many have been seized and turned over to MS? Good question, considering domains(at)microsoft(.)com is associated with about 23,149 domains.

Stupid is what Stupid Does
- Forrest Gump -

 

[south]

Same people? http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0919.html

Takes a few lessons sometimes I guess.

 

[Gerry]

Same people? http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0919.html

Takes a few lessons sometimes I guess.

Wow, certainly appears to be.

Not sure how they can even defend their position.

Looks like they would get off lucky with just a WIPO decision.

This is different. This new filing of MS goes way beyond any WIPO panel.

 

[Focus]

This is most likely why MS is looking to beat the crap outta them...

 

[draggar]

What idiots are still daring to squat on MS? They deserve it...MS don't play that shiiiiit!

What scares me about something like this is that I have a set of domains (.net pointing to the .org) that could be considered a typo of a M$ product if they really wanted to press it hard enough.

My saving grace is that the only thing that it would have to do with any MS product is that most people use IE to view the site. It is also used and is similar along the lines of a niche I've found myself in (I own dozens of domains in this niche).

While MS would most likely lose with a good defense (even a mediocre one), chances are I wouldn't be able to afford the defense.

 

[Jonathan]

I don't know that they're this aggressive with everyone. I think these specific guys that MS is going after, have really pissed them off.

 

[domaingenius]

And to think that the Panelist in my WIPO is an ex Microsoft in house
attorney, lol.

DG

 

[Gerry]

And to think that the Panelist in my WIPO is an ex Microsoft in house
attorney, lol.

DG

Yeah, I recall looking at that thread a week or two ago.

This situation seems to be bypassing the WIPO process completely.

If the domain listed (perhaps the others as well) is indeed fraudulently listed in the WHOIS as being a MS property, I would imagine that MS has a right to seek damages.

Gee, glad it is not me. :smilewinkgrin: