Posts: 72
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2006
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.
Posts: 88
Threads: 5
Joined: Oct 2006
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.
Posts: 72
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2006
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"
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Okay, that makes sense. So if you're not attempting to profit from it, is it still cyber squatting?
Posts: 15
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2006
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.
Posts: 88
Threads: 5
Joined: Oct 2006
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.
Posts: 98
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2006
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.
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
I'm guessing it must be hard to prove someone's intent, isn't it? I'm just guessing here.
Posts: 88
Threads: 5
Joined: Oct 2006
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.
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Hmmm...so I guess that's why lawyers make the big bucks, huh? Seeing as they can figure out intent....
