Why Corporate Entities Should NOT Be Able to Sue Typo-Squatters

[Duckinla]

I too support Microsoft. I think people don't understand how good it can be for an industry to have a rich successful company like Microsoft driving innovation. Look at Ebay, how many people have become successful in some way related to Ebay? A lot.

I think Microsoft wants a lot of unresolving typos out there when they launch their tool. I don't think their tool will be about typos, It will be about unresolving typos. I think it will be too risky for them to redirect anything that resolves, whether they consider it legit or not. They don't have the right to be judge and jury of the internet, only to capture unresolving typos. If they redirected traffic to just one legitimate domain on accident, they would be slaughtered in the courts and in public opinion. This is why I think they are going on the offensive. They want to kill domain tasting and leave unresolving typos out there to be grabbed by their tool.

 

[shaolinmonk]

Great article in the 'Daily Domainer' today that may be of interest:

ARTICLE IN FULL:


DAILY DOMAINER NEWS: Microsoft Sues Competing Cybersquatters
===================================================================

In a return to anti-competitive strategies that got it into trouble
with the U.S. justice department years ago, Microsoft is attacking
its competitors like there is no tomorrow. This time, they go after
competing cybersquatters, who, with support by Google and Yahoo,
apparently take a big bite out of Microsoft's domain typo profits.

As the Daily Domainer reported last month, Microsoft is Quietly
Making Untold Millions by hijacking non-existent domains, including
trademarked domains, to its Live search engine, where the
trademarked terms are monetized through PPC (pay per click) ads.

The primary target of Microsoft's barrage of lawsuits is domain
taster Maltuzi LLC, a company that tests hundreds of thousands of
domains for traffic and revenue each month with the goal of keeping
only profitable domains.

Maltuzi's domains are monetized through Oversee.net/Domainsponsor,
which primarily uses Google's PPC feeds, thereby generating unknown
amounts of revenue for Google.

The legal brains at Microsoft have thought this through very well.
Microsoft cannot be accused of cybersquatting, even though they do
it all the time by automatically and indiscriminately generating
PPC-filled results pages for a virtually infinite number of non-
existent domains.

However, if a company complains about Microsoft profiting from
their trademark, Microsoft can simply respond, "If you don't like
it, just register the domain!". By registering the domain, of
course, the trademark owner would gain immediate control over it
and Microsoft would be off the hook.

Therefore, it is in Microsoft's best interest to pounce upon
competing cybersquatters who currently use Google and Yahoo to
monetize their domains. By doing so, Microsoft harms both Google
and Yahoo and boosts its own PPC income.

If they can root out cybersquatters by attacking them in court and
encouraging others to do the same, Microsoft will be able to
effectively monopolize profits from trademarked domain typos.

The only thing that could reverse this trend would be for
trademark owners to sue Microsoft, Earthlink, Charter and others
for profiting from trademark domain typos. If Microsoft is not
reigned in, cybersquatters in turn will respond by downsizing and
splitting up their operations and setting up shop in offshore
countries, and thereby becoming less of a target.

It is important to note that most domainers are not interested in
cybersquatting. Domainers buy, sell, monetize and develop domains
in general, while cybersquatters register trademarked domains and
typos thereof with a goal of diverting traffic from the trademark
in question in order to make a profit.

As Chris Bayiokos said yesterday:

"There are still plenty of people who label anyone who owns a
domain name a cybersquatter. I think time is the key for
legitimacy, just like with any other 'discrimination.' If someone
can buy up tangible earth and sell it for a profit, then domain
buying and selling should get by easy."

 

[Focus]

wow, great post...great find dude! k:

Commercial Corporate Warfare...at it's best.

Whois privacy is worth it's weight in gold.

now this is f***in funny....unreal.. http://primeupload.com/file/82709/microsoft-browser-error-of-course.jpg.html

 

[Duckinla]

Back to Taboo's point:

He's totally right and I think most people here are missing it. The domain name itself is like a piece of land. A piece of land is neither good nor bad, it's the use you put it too. If you use your land to build a McDonalds infringement, you can be shut down. But you don't lose the land. Same should be true of domains.
Determining if the domain "Nikrosoft" is too close to "Microsoft" is totally subjective. You should not be able to use it to pretend to be Microsoft but it should not belong to Microsoft just because someone thinks it sounds too much like "Microsoft". What if Someone decided that "Bike" and "Hike" are too similar to "Nike"?
Even if you put the land to improper use, the final result should not be that another entity automatically takes posession of that land.

 

[Focus]

That's what the wipo process is for...so it can be judged fairly..or unfairly.

 

[Gerry]

That's what the wipo process is for...so it can be judged fairly..or unfairly.

The only issue I see here is I saw a stat that showed 84% of WIPO are awarded in favor or the complainant.

The cost of a WIPO is nothing to some of these big companies.

Privacy added usually is also a non factor when MS gets the justice department to issue subpeonas to disclose the info. This is something MS appears to have gotten very good at.

I can truly see both sides of this coin but I am not sure I would want to be the one to set a precedent in a ruling against.

I am all for typos.

 

[jasdon11]

The only issue I see here is I saw a stat that showed 84% of WIPO are awarded in favor or the complainant.

The 84% looks high, but I imagine that the vast majority of cases brought, blatently violate TMs.

 

[Gerry]

The 84% looks high, but I imagine that the vast majority of cases brought, blatently violate TMs.

That number came from an article on either this forum or another one. Help in locating the link would be appreciated from members.

 

[Tia Wood]

Back to Taboo's point: He's totally right and I think most people here are missing it. The domain name itself is like a piece of land.

No it's not. Comparing it to land is totally way off. We're talking about names and words here. Not land or land ownership. Land is just land with no words on it. You can't look at a piece of land and think "man, that looks like McDonald's grass. Copyright infringement!"

However, if you build a business name brand with the intention to infringe on someone else's copyright, you can be rightfully shut down.

A more proper analogy is the land is compared to the hosting account (or the actual PPC Parking page). The building and it's contents (services and products) is compared to the link results on a PPC page. The name of the company is compared to the actual domain itself.

Out of curiosity, how many people here actually know about internet technology and development? (not to insult but it's important in this discussion)

 

[taboo]

Not necessarily land, but a physical/virtual address that retains an actual location. Can you debate that? As it is the only way of reaching our destinations online.

If every company fought to own every variation of their domain name it would seriously hinder our industry. A "typo-squatter" may have bad use for the domain at the moment, but at least the domain can change hands. Evay.com could goto a start up company that makes any number of products, but this wouldn't be possible if Ebay owned the domain.

Like duckinla mentioned, nike is similar to bike and hike even Mike. Given the current wipo process if Mike.com was showing Nike ads they could potentially win that case. Which is odd, as I just checked Mike.com and it is showing Nike ads

There is really a grey area here, that we as domain investors are facing. Some of us do not plan on developing our portfolios, but have invested large amounts of $$ and hard work to obtain them. There are people that have a strong opinion that if a domain is not developed it is fair game. It surely seems like a step in the right direction, but shouldn't it be the owners choice to make? Like when you see a nice open lot in a downtown area, given this perspective someone should be able to just waltz up onto that property and build a nice skyscraper. It's not like the land-owner was using it, right? lol.

 

[Tia Wood]

Not necessarily land, but a physical/virtual address that retains an actual location. Can you debate that?

You can buy any piece of land you want, but you cannot say your address is " One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399".

In the same sense that you cannot buy a domain name with the intent of infringing on someone else's copyright and expect not to get sued.

Domain names point to real IP address where the IP address doesn't matter and the hosting account doesn't matter as long as the domain name points to an IP address that resolves to a real server. This is the true "land address" in the sense that you are talking about.

But a domain name is just that: a name. It's not an actual address in the terms which you are talking about because IPs and hosting accounts can change. But it points to an actual address, it's a name for an actual address so you don't have to remember all those numbers.

It's comparing apples to oranges. You can say domain investing works like buying land, building property, etc. BUT if you take it literally and begin applying that analogy to everything related in the domain industry, you're going to get yourself in big trouble. Especially when it comes to copyright infringement.

Anyways, the bottom line is: don't think you can get away with it.

Reverse hijacking is a completely different story. Companies do not have a right to generic words. But they have a right to protect their copyrights and trademarks. Just like you have the right to protect your personal identity.

Having a trademark or copyright is a unique identity for that service/product/company/method, etc. They don't want them stolen. And they are in the moral and legal right to take measures that protects them. I darn sure don't want someone stealing my identity and committing crimes.

 

[Duckinla]

Land is just land with no words on it. You can't look at a piece of land and think "man, that looks like McDonald's grass. Copyright infringement!"

To say that you can look at a name and say "man, that looks just like Nike" is totally subjective. What looks just similar to Nike in English might mean "Pretty Flower" in Korean. Or Nike might be gone in 10 years. Taboo is saying, and I agree, that Nike should not be awarded a word or string of letters because 1 person misused it. Maybe I should be punished for misusing it, but it shouldn't automatically go to Nike. Other people could have legitimate claim to that string of letters as well.

 

[gogeorge]

I wonder if any of these companies will start to sue google or yahoo because they profit indirectly from trademarks by providing the ads.

 

[Tia Wood]

I wonder if any of these companies will start to sue google or yahoo because they profit indirectly from trademarks by providing the ads.

I can see that happening one day.

Anyhow, I'm too sick to debate anymore. My eye is swollen and I'm in pain all over. :undecided: And my antibiotics make me feel funny.

 

[droplister]

I register typos, but they don't make up the majority of my holdings. Im sure once I have a trademark to protect I'll be c&d-ing as well. heh, its only ok if its not my TM being infringed.

 

[gogeorge]

To say that you can look at a name and say "man, that looks just like Nike" is totally subjective. What looks just similar to Nike in English might mean "Pretty Flower" in Korean. Or Nike might be gone in 10 years. Taboo is saying, and I agree, that Nike should not be awarded a word or string of letters because 1 person misused it. Maybe I should be punished for misusing it, but it shouldn't automatically go to Nike. Other people could have legitimate claim to that string of letters as well.

I would think a free speech blog is a legitimate use and would help help in a fight against a corporation claiming trademark. I am not sure about parody websites. One way to fight back to create lots of bad publicity for the offending company.

 

[taboo]

I don't mind a C&D letter, and I will usually not put up a fight in giving up a domain. I'm not stupid, even though I may disagree with their methods. What really bothers me is that Microsoft is suing typo-squatters for millions of dollars in damages. They are targeting people with a strong ROI, to put a dent in their business. See this article http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-14-2007/0004545647&EDATE=

From what I gather no C&D was sent to the defendants, and Microshaft is trying to punish them brutally. Meanwhile thousands of people have Microsoft related domains, that are used in bad faith. It is not these peoples fault MS is stupid enough not to register WindowsLiveMessager.com before they release the product. And now they blame the person that registered that domain for damages? Obviously it has value, and if that guy didn't register it someone else would have the next minute. IMO it's their stupidity to blame.

I think MS legal is on this forum as we speak, trolling away trying to act as cyber cops. Analyzing all of the threads here, making notes to send to his lawyer pals. http://www.dnforum.com/showpost.php?p=995389&postcount=18

No, not selling, or here to promote. Here to learn and comment.

Here to patrol w/ a fake badge, does Aaron Kornblum care to comment?

I would think a free speech blog is a legitimate use and would help help in a fight against a corporation claiming trademark. I am not sure about parody websites. One way to fight back to create lots of bad publicity for the offending company.

My two favorite websites www.microsuck.com & www.untied.com, nothing more glorious to be a thorn in the side of evil :smilewinkgrin:

 

[gogeorge]

There are Microsoft lawyers also attending the domain name conferences as well. They are there to learn how to sue domainers better most likely. There are lawyers who attend medical conventions to learn how to sue doctors better as well.

 

[taboo]

Right, but human life has never been lost over domain malpractice. I see no viable reason to justify lawsuits against domain registrants, unless they do not comply with C&D orders.