Our country has a law against something called cybersquatting. For those that aren't familiar, this law prevents people from registering internet domain names that are associated with another company. Basically, what they try to do is to prevent me from registering www.ford.com (assuming the site didn't already exist) and trying to sell the domain to the Ford company.

But here is where it gets interesting. If accused of cybersquatting, you have to prove that you weren't trying to make a profit. More than that, you can still be accused of copy right infringement. Whereas in real life, I can open up a donut shop, and call it "Ford Donuts", because no reasonable person would assume that the Ford auto company is in the donut business, online this does not apply. So a guy who owns Ford donut shop STILL cannot have a site www.ford.com.

The worst part is, very often it's just being used for SLAPPs, because most people don't have the funds to engage in a legal battle with corporate giants. This is very common with "sucks" web sites (for example, www.fordsucks.com will get you sued very quickly). As if someone can assume that fordsucks.com is the authentic Ford site. It is also applied to cases involving misspellings (a little while back a guy got sued by Disney for owning dinsey.com).

Here is the latest round of lunacy: From CNN.com

Questions for debate: Are anti-cybersquatting laws necessary? Or is domain name speculation legitimate business?

If you feel this law is necessary, should it be amended so that it cannot be used for SLAPPs?

According to the fair usage laws, I don't know how people lose cases when they have legitimate rights to what they use.

For example, Microsoft is shutting down a site created by a guy named Mike Rowe. He named his website MikeRoweSoft.com and is getting killed.

As long as he's not claiming to be part of Microsoft or whatever, why can't he keep that name?

For example, we have two major stores in my area named Ace. There is Ace Music and Ace Hardware. As long as Ace Hardware doesn't start selling guitars, it's fair use to use that name. The point is, you cannt create something designed to confuse people into believing you're someone else.

But hey, with enough money and lawyers, they can make these laws mean whatever they want.

What needs to be done is for ebusiness entrepreneurs to band together and create a nonprofit organization. Membership dues would go partially for legal fees when protecting bona fide domain names.

Or maybe the ACLU would like to tackle this? It'd be worth a query to that organization.

What if someone changes names legally to Ford Motorco? Mercedes Benz? I imagine that would be a tougher one to argue in court.

The somethingsucks type of site should be protected under the 1st Amendment. I think the ACLU would be likely to take that case.

This goes beyond the internet and into real world businesses. I remember reading about how McDonalds had successfuly shut down a small family business in Northern England for intellectual property infringement. The defendant's name - McDonald. From memory he ran the family's fish and chip shop, which had been in business several years longer than the US megacorp, but they could afford all the lawyers necessary to drive him out of business.

On the other hand, I think the speculative registration of URLs on the off-chance that some future business will pay vast sums to put their preexisting or unique trade platform on the web is a little dog-in-the-mangerish. So while I can think of worse crimes, I will never think of cybersquatters (in their purest sense) as any kind of hero or in any way admirable. Clever, perhaps, but in no way noble or worthy of praise.

There was a similar case in Denmark where a hotdog street vendor called McDougal was shut down by Macdonalds...

What's truly terrible is that I am yet to see a "sucks" case where the plaintiff lost. For reasons I can't even begin to fathom, the courts decided that this constitutes copyright infringement, and this legal precedent has been followed since.

But the thing is, it doesn't really matter even if the courts said differently. How many "Mike Rows" out there can afford to even begin a legal battle against someone like Microsoft? How many would want to? These are basically mob tactics, only the team of thugs is replaced by team of lawyers.

And the "intentional misspellings" fiasco. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the name of your site wasn't an intentional misspelling of a site associated with the XYZ corporation. Guilty until proven innocent. And how do you prove something like that, anyway?

Personally, I don't think ANY cybersquatting should be illegal. If someone had enough foresight and business sense to buy a site before a company did, good for them. I don't see this as being all that different from buying up real estate with the sole purpose of selling it for lots more.

Following established principles of trademark use, domain names ending in "dot rtm" should have been applied to trademark names (e.g. www.ibm.rtm). RTM, of course, stands for registered trademark. The reason why this follows established principles is that this is what companies have to do anyway when they are off the Internet (e.g. IBM®). But the courts responded to sentiments that the public was infatuated with the "dot com" ending and so they decided to let "dot com" imply "dot rtm" and gave rights to the big names such as Ford Motor Company instead of letting some small fry keep www.ford.com for Ford's Donut shop.

I can't see what this would accomplish. IBM the computer company, and a guy that starts totally different company called IBM would still fight over www.ibm.rtm. That's the whole thing, when it comes to the internet, the courts decided it does not matter if the nature of the business is totally different. This is completely unlike established principles of trademark use.

In that case the trademark name would either have to be combined with something to describe the goods and services offered, or the trademark classification would have to be made part of the url. Otherwise it is first come first serve as far as whoever owns the trademark is concerned.

As a lay person, I think cybersquatting is a perfectly legitimate endeavor. If one is smart enough and fast enough, not only to think up the dotcoms, but also have the financial outlay in securing them BEFORE the Corporation got off its butt and on the bandwagon to secure or make up their own, why wouldnt it be a right to own them? And, if a Corp desires to own THAT PARTICULAR .com, is it wrong to ask a selling price for it? They dont Have to Have it. They can own IE: Fordfirst.com, or Fordisthebest.com., but obviously they werent the first or the best, as they would have got their behind in gear and secured their dotcom. ( Ford as example only)
The initial premise is capitalism at its finest. How it's possible to sue someone for owning a dotcom that a Corp did not buy beforehand and someone else DID is beyond my comprehension, since the public can buy whatever is 'open and available' , on the market. They (the Corp) did not see it coming? Tough cookies, you lose, or pay for the oversight. That would be correct and fair, but it seems 'just practice' has gone out the window in these times over who can bully the best. I say, pay up for missing the boat.
Why is, for example Ford.com a one and only to the Ford Motor Corp? Will Fordsexy, Fordhot, Fordvalue, Fordoftheyear2555 be their right as well?

To add, for one: How many people are named Ford in the country? If ex- President Ford had secured Ford.com, would he be subject to suit by the Ford company, or would they buy it from him for a hefty amount? How many Macdonalds, O'Connors, Tysons, Mrs Smiths, Shell's, Bell's, Roger's, Roman's, Chang's, Wang's, Lavassos, Bank's, Washington's, Lincoln's, Georgian's, and many other people, have names which are the same as national or international Corps or Organizations and privately have registered .coms in their name? Are they expected to submissively relinquish on demmand or be sued? Is there a payoff for them in a free market society?
Secondly: If the Corps want these domains they should buy them, and I dont see it necessary to prove one was not trying to make a profit, since it was, in fact, a free market enterprise at the time of sale.

IMO, this issue 'so far' doesnt fall under RTM law.
I also see this as mob tactics and have no idea under what premise Corps are getting away with it, especially bullying people who have righteously PAID for the domains, free and available at the time. As well as sucks.whatever. To me that falls under Constitutional right of free speech.

It seems to me that if a person isn't using a domain name with an intent to defame or defraud an entity with a similar name there shouldn't be any basis for forcing them to surrender that domain. I don't know what the specific law is regarding this though, there probably isn't one that specifically applies to domain names. So, it comes down to whoever has the most lawyers wins I guess and will remain so as long as the trial lawyer lobby continues to resist tort reform in this country.

I disagree Aquilla, but it throws the topic a bit. There is whitehouse.gov, the official govt site, and whitehouse.org, a parody site. I believe all sites should be allowed. Its basically a free speech issue. You can certainely have a site that defames another entity of a similar name.

If we had for example Fordsucks.com, telling of the problems with Ford automobiles, it should not fall under RTM laws. In fact none of it should fall under RTM laws. Domains should be held open as a first come first serve basis with no censureship what-so-ever. You pay to play, and if you are less clever, you can pay to remove or use too.

Whitehouse.org is a political satire website, most definitely covered under first amendment protections. That sort of a website was not the type of domain I was addressing.

However, something like a Fordsucks.com website could be subject to libel laws, especially if the content of that website was not absolutely 100% correct. The very name could invite a potential lawsuit by Ford Motor Company, appropriately so since the name in unto itself indicates a desire to harm Ford.

I'll agree there.
Possible Internet laws would be a good topic to explore sometime. However, I think this domain thing is not going in the right direction, appears to be hedging toward corporations rights to 'hindsight', blatantly putting the screws to the more crafty, who got the better of the situation.

I most definitely agree with you there, although I'd be careful of using the characterization of "the crafty" getting the better of the situation. Such a description could also apply to con artists running scams on people.

Perhaps this topic might be better addressed in another thread because I think the problem goes much deeper than simply domain ownership on the Internet. I think there is a basic flaw in our legal process that this problem serves to demonstrate, ie. "he who has the most lawyers wins". That appears to be happening in this instance, but it happens alot in a variety of instances not connected with the Internet.


I'll think about how to frame the topic for this and start a new thread when I get a chance to.

Actually Aquilla, this IS a specific law that applies only to domain names. That was my whole point. If you want to look it up, it's the Anticyberquatting Consumer Protection Act, singed into law on November 29, 1999. It also covers "typo squatting", intentional misspellings. I'm still trying to figure out what powers the court conjures up to know if a misspelling was intentional or not. I hope one day someone dyslexic counter-sues them under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As far as the "sucks" cases, the issue of libel never even comes up. It's just considered cybersquatting, or "watering down the trademark." Because naturally, we would all assume that windowscrasheseveryfiveminutes.com is an authentic Microsoft site.

The facts speak for themselves, Mike Rowe is essentially getting sued over his own name. And there have been many other cases equally preposterous.

I should also note that there is a problem when a website is misleading to consumers, even due to their own error. Because the "dot com" ending was burned into people's minds, people have a hard time adapting when other endings are used. For example, the Patent and Trademark website is www.uspto.gov but alot of people accidentally used to go to www.uspto.com instead. This creates a security problem with email, since the uspto.com server can pick up mail delivered to anything@uspto.com and this could enable someone to read confidential emails. In such a case, one could argue that if there was no other point to the domain name than to copy one in such a way as to capitalize on potential confusion by consumers, then the name could be forfeited. However, if the problem exists but there was no motive to create confusion, in other words the problem is merely coincidental and unfortunate, then you could blame the website that feels it is being infringed upon for not coming up with a distinctive enough name. Also, you would have to prove that consumers are being confused. For example, if the name is www.mydomainname.com, it is unlikely that people will accidentally put .net or .org instead.

But how is that the fault of the uspto.com site owner? Because someone misaddressed their email?!? That would be the fault of the person sending the email, wouldn't it?

I wanted to get a domain for the company I work for. The one we wanted had already been taken for a year, yet sits empty. We decided we did not want to pay the asking price, so we got another name. No crying, no suing, we just changed a little and are quite happy with it.

Bottom line should be: if I register a name, it's mine. If you want it, buy it from me. If not, get another one. It's just like me buying land that I think is going to increase in value in the near future in hopes of reselling it for more. Why should it be illegal to have foresight?

I would agree with others have said that this is a stupid law. And even go further, especially since the Mike Rowe is not within the US he is not held to US laws.

As for domain names I do agree first come first serve, cause what stops companies from just coming up with domain names that have nothing to do with them and using this law as grounds for future endeavors.

While I am torn on copyright infringement when it comes to the internet, the possible way to correct this is like all the different kind of extensions we already have for domain names. Originally .com was supposed to be used for companies but websites sprung up to quickly for the internet to adjust. But having a blank statement that a company such as Ford or McDonalds has the right to ford.com or McDonalds.com or any other variation is wrong, because like the www.MikeRoweSoft.com case shows is even if someone is not using the trademark that they can be threatened.