Yep. I read one where the guy was essentially giving a place FREE ADVERTISING...and they SUED him! It was a long drawn-out process, which he logged and posted on his 'new' sites - which were based on the original site, such as "originalsitesucks.com" etc.
I don't know if he won or not... I should look it up again and see... but he *should* have, if he didn't, in my opinion.
LyricB Wrote:Can someone explain what cybersquatting is to me? Is that where you buy a domain name similar to something that is already trademarked?
Something like that. While the link below isn't the official definition, it should
give you a few ideas how it goes:
Cybersquatting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:According to the U.S. federal law known as the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.
Quote:cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from
You can read how this is misinterpreted, etc, in the case I mentioned above, at the site "taubmansucks.com"
Okay, that makes sense. So if you're not attempting to profit from it, is it still cyber squatting?
I've never been accused and, except for a few high profile case, never heard of anyone getting accused. I suspect the threat is overstated.
oljiaoyi Wrote:I've never been accused and, except for a few high profile case, never heard of anyone getting accused. I suspect the threat is overstated.
Some love to overstate things. But others are very, very real.
It seems that it must be when a domain is to close for comfort to something already trademarked? Or maybe it is simply when a trademark holder neglect to cover their bases and obtain related domain names?
Just guessing here.
I'm guessing it must be hard to prove someone's intent, isn't it? I'm just guessing here.
LyricB Wrote:I'm guessing it must be hard to prove someone's intent, isn't it? I'm just guessing here.
Well, if you can't even guess why I'm posting here, then I guess it's hard to
figure out someone's intent for the domain name.
Kidding aside, some experienced attorneys I know have figured out ways to
at least determine a measure of intent. They adjust according to how things
play out.
Hmmm...so I guess that's why lawyers make the big bucks, huh? Seeing as they can figure out intent....