# Cyber-Squatting: Legal investment strategy or invasion of the identity snatchers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2000, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976 "2000-05-09T01:41:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/1 "2000-05-09T01:41:24Z")
Recently I have heard about so-called “cyber-squatters” in the mainstream media, and how it was affecting entertainment industries from music to sports to TV & film. There are people out there who keep track of new amd upcoming celebrities and pay the nominal registration fee for a domain in their name. Then, when (if) the celebrity wishes to start a website with their name, they have to deal with this cyber-squatter in order to buy the domain back from them. They ask (and I presume have gotten from people) upwards of five figures. People against this practice say that one should have to buy their own identity from someone else. People who are for it argue that the cyber-squatters have the foresight to pick names of people who will want/need that domain, and that it’s always a gamble like any business - these people probably register hundreds of athletes, band names and actors who never “make it,” and that domain is worthless. What say you, and why? Also, what court decisions here or abroad have been passed or are currently being decided that impacts this issue? Oh, and by the way - [brianoneill.com](http://www.brianoneill.com) is taken (by a _Canadian_! Humph…), but you can still get [brianoneill.net](http://brianoneill.net) and [brianoneill.org](http://brianoneill.org) if you wish to try and capitalize on the any eventual (though unlikely) fame that comes my way… * * * Yer pal, Satan _TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Four weeks, one day, 23 hours, 35 minutes and 2 seconds. 1199 cigarettes not smoked, saving $149.91. Life saved: 4 days, 3 hours, 55 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/2 "2000-05-09T01:53:14Z")
I say if those celebritys are too proud to put a - next to their name they deserve to pay them:) ---
**Author:** ![Louie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@Louie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Louie)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/3 "2000-05-09T02:52:14Z")
Apologizes in advance for not having the details, but there is a law against cyber-squatting sites with a trademarked name. The first company to win a case against a cyber-squatter was the World Wrestling Federation for registering the name “[www.worldwrestlingfederation.com](http://www.worldwrestlingfederation.com)” then trying to sell the name to the WWF for more money. Site : [http://www.sportsvueinc.com/News-Jan00/0117WWF.htm](http://www.sportsvueinc.com/News-Jan00/0117WWF.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Louie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@Louie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Louie)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/4 "2000-05-09T02:56:14Z")
The first company to win a case against a cyber-squatter was the World Wrestling Federation. The cyber-squatter registered the name “[www.worldwrestlingfederation.com](http://www.worldwrestlingfederation.com)” then tried to sell the name to the WWF for a 4 figure sum. The WWF took him to court and won the rights to the site’s name under the new law. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/5 "2000-05-09T08:17:49Z")
Well, that makes sense, Louie, since using a copyrighted business name in almost any way is at best deceptive, and at worst an attempt at extortion (as seen here). But what of the likes of [http://www.aolsucks.com](http://www.aolsucks.com) (and it’s mirror at [http://www.aolsucks.org](http://www.aolsucks.org))? Here is a site which has a trademarked and copyrighted name in it’s URL. Now, this name was chosen to make a complaint about the organization, but what if they wanted to sell this domain to them instead of use it as the platform they are? You think it’s far-fetched that AOL would want to own a domain of such a name? Well, [click here](http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=name+alladvantage&STRING=Search) for a list of several websites [alladvantage.com](http://alladvantage.com) - a “get paid to surf the net” company - registered. So, you tell me why [alladvantage.com](http://alladvantage.com) would register “[noadvantage.com](http://noadvantage.com)” “[alladvantageblows.com](http://alladvantageblows.com)” and “[crapadvantage.com](http://crapadvantage.com),” amongst others. So is maintaining a site with a copyrighted name in the domain name designed to spoof or flame that organization okay, but if you wanted to sell this name to the company in question, that is somehow wrong? What if AOL approaches THEM, asking to buy the name from them. Where is the difference? * * * Yer pal, Satan _TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: One month, 6 hours, 12 minutes and 32 seconds. 1210 cigarettes not smoked, saving $151.29. Life saved: 4 days, 4 hours, 50 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/6 "2000-05-09T10:17:09Z")
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago about an interesting variant on this practice. You set up a domain with a name that is close to the domain name of an organization about which you wish to gather information. You set up a mail server. You get all the email in which people spelled that address wrong and used your version of the name. This is especially effective when your target is a .org or .net and you get the .com version. The major example was an anti-telemarketing crusader. There’s a telemarketing trade group with a .org name. The crusader got the .com version and was _flooded_ with email, including a lot from employees of the organization. He picked up a lot of information that the telemarketing group didn’t want broadcast … ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/7 "2000-05-09T12:54:28Z")
Satan, In order for companies like [Alladvantage.com](http://Alladvantage.com) to prevent dissenters from putting up bad PR sites, they simply purchase the URL’s that are derogatory, or can be taken as such. Why has AOL not bought out, sued or otherwise taken down [AOLsucks.com/.org](http://AOLsucks.com/.org), or sites like AOHell? First off, it’s hard to see where these sites could really put a dent in AOL’s marketshare. Secondly, it’s bad PR in and of itself to forcibly tear down a bad PR website, or otherwise disturb it’s owners. Think of the bad PR that could be generated by some lame-ass “L33t” hacker wannabe leaking a story to the online press about AOL stifling his first amendment rights! Basically, it’s easier to humor them than antagonize them. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/8 "2000-05-09T12:56:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Let me correct myself… > The first company to win a case against a cyber-squatter was the World Wrestling Federation. The cyber-squatter registered the name “[www.worldwrestlingfederation.com](http://www.worldwrestlingfederation.com)” then tried to sell the name to the WWF for a 4 figure sum. The WWF took him to court and won the rights to the site’s name under the new law. Oh, and Dammit Louie…you beat me to it! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Delta-9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3be4f8/32.png) [@Delta-9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Delta-9)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/9 "2000-05-09T13:36:50Z")
_As long as there aren’t any copyright violations_, I must support the squatters. They are the ones who had the foresight, saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Isn’t that what a free market is all about? The guy who trademarked “Y2K” and “The Year 2000” many years ago was a smart cookie. I think the same rules should apply in this situation. Ya snooz, ya looz. ---
**Author:** ![Morgan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Morgan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2000, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/10 "2000-05-09T23:17:18Z")
Try out [http://www.georgewbushsucks.com](http://www.georgewbushsucks.com) . His campaign bought the domain name in anticipation of someone else buying it. When this was news about a year ago, some reporter actually asked the campaign manager, “Does George W. Bush suck?” Satan, to answer your specific question the difference is “use in commerce.” Federal law makes a distincition between activities which are engaged in for profit, and activities that aren’t (note: each state has its own trademark laws that may or may not require use in commerce). Actively asking someone to pay you is a commercial activity. Passively waiting until someone offers you money is not. BTW, the law is not very developed in this area. Last I checked, the courts have been all over the place with decisions. There is almost no consistency whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/11 "2000-05-10T16:39:25Z")
**Apparently there is an old law on the books that has become useful in fighting the squatters. I can’t link y’all to my company’s CWW, so here is the article from 10/25/99** : > [@](#): > > Bell Atlantic has reached back into the 19th Century for a weapon to fight high-tech piracy on the Internet that is threatening our good name. > > This new breed of pirates – sometimes called “cybersquatters” – is plundering the equity we’ve built for our brand – and doing the same to other companies – by registering similar Internet domain names and using them for corrupt purposes. > > In just the past year, we’ve found more than 1,000 instances of trademark infringements of this type involving variations of our Bell and Bell Atlantic domain names (for example [BelAtlantic.com](http://BelAtlantic.com), [BellAtlantics.com](http://BellAtlantics.com), [Bellgte.com](http://Bellgte.com), [belltelephone.net](http://belltelephone.net)). > > The cybersquatters include unscrupulous telecom companies attempting to sell products under our name; those who register variations of our name and then attempt to sell them back to us for an exorbitant price; and those who use our name to lure Web users to sites featuring everything from pornography to satanic cults. > > “When cybersquatters steal our name and register it as theirs, it just confuses customers who are looking to do business with us,” said Sarah Deutsch, senior intellectual property counsel. “It’s really a consumer fraud issue, and in some cases it’s nothing more than theft or a transparent attempt to extort money from us.” > > In an ironic and innovative legal strategy, Bell Atlantic is leading the fight against these modern-day buccaneers using a tactic that merchants in the 1800s used against pirates who plundered their ships. > > Called “in rem” – Latin for “against the thing” —the legal maneuver enables us to dispense with suing the individual or company responsible and go after the name itself. Just as 19th-century merchants realized the futility of suing pirates who were unlikely to show up in court, Bell Atlantic realizes that Internet pirates often use false names and addresses and cannot be found. > > By suing the ship and winning, the merchants were able to have ownership of the ship transferred to them. Today, by suing the domain names, we’re winning in court and having the pirated names handed over to us. > > “We’ve been very successful with this,” said Deutsch. She cited a recent court victory in which we sued nearly 100 domain names and were able to get more than two-thirds of them transferred back to us. > > Deutsch said the _in rem_ approach is a welcome solution because there are considerable legal obstacles that prevent companies from successfully suing cybersquatters, including First Amendment (free speech) issues and how the courts interpret the use of a trademarked name. > > Unfortunately, with costs as low as $70 to register a domain name and a possible resale value in five figures, the problem keeps growing. > > Deutsch noted that there has been an explosion in domain name registrations, growing from several hundred thousand a few years ago to nearly 3 million this year. And now the > problem is a global issue, with people able to register domain names in more than 250 country codes. > > “We’ve had one instance where someone was doing business in Great Britain under our name without authorization,” Deutsch said. “And in another instance, the crown prince of a country called Tonga took our name and registered it using Tonga’s country code. The crown prince said he was just reserving it for us and agreed to sell it for $1,000.” > > Deutsch said that when Bell Atlantic and GTE announced their merger, cybersquatters immediately registered more than 50 variations of the name and then attempted to sell them to us. > > To strengthen our legal standing against cybersquatters, we’re lobbying Congress for legislation through a coalition of famous brand holders known as the Private Sector Working Group (PSWG). Deutsch serves as co-chairperson for the group, which includes Microsoft, Disney, Porsche, and AT&T among its members. > > A bill currently before the House would make it illegal for people with no legitimate claim to a trademarked name to register it as a domain name, or to register a name that is similar in a misleading way. > > The in rem tactic we’ve used so successfully has been written into the bill, along with provisions for penalties of up to $300,000. > > Deutsch said the PSWG has found a sympathetic audience in Congress, not only because of the trademark issues involved. A number of congressional members have been victims of cybersquatters themselves, with people registering Web sites using variations on the member’s name and then holding the name for ransom. **And a follow up decision by the courts on 2/14/00** : > [@](#): > > Bell Atlantic won the legal right to take possession of 23 Internet addresses from “cybersquatters” recently in what is believed to be the first court test of recent legislation passed by Congress. > > The law, known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, makes it illegal to take trademarked names - and names that sound like those trademarked names - in bad faith to the detriment of their rightful owners. It allows for damages as high as $100,000 for names taken after the Act was signed into law last November. > > A magistrate judge in Virginia issued the ruling verbally. We originally filed suit last fall seeking the transfer or cancellation of 91 names. Most gave them back to us vuntarily after we filed suit; the last 23 never answered our complaint and were found “in default.” > > Sarah Deutsch, vice president and chief intellectual property counsel," told The Wall Street Journal that the ruling was "very important for protecting our brand. > > In our recent filing with the court to take possession of the illegal domain names, Bell Atlantic used a provision of the law known as “in rem.” It permits companies or trademark owners to sue for possession of the Internet domain name, rather than suing the parties responsible for the illicit use of a trademarked name. > > Deutsch said the cybersquatting law was necessary because the worst cybersquatting offenders often provided false addresses, making it difficult or virtually impossible to track them down. > > Cybersquatting has been a growing problem for Bell Atlantic and other companies. In 1999 alone, we found more than 1,000 instances of trademark infringements involving variations of our Bell and Bell Atlantic domain names (for example [BelAtlantic.com](http://BelAtlantic.com), [BellAtlantics.com](http://BellAtlantics.com), [Bellgte.com](http://Bellgte.com), [belltelephone.net](http://belltelephone.net)). > > Of the 23 domain names we were given the right to claim last week - at least one was linked to a pornography Web site. None of the former owners of the illegal Internet addresses > showed up at last week’s hearing. **I think we have all learned a valuable lesson from this- I know I have: a friend of mine does this frequently; I wonder how much he’ll pay for me to keep my mouth shut?** 😃 * * * Manual sig line #38 ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/12 "2000-05-10T18:05:08Z")
\*\* But what of the likes of [http://www.aolsucks.com](http://www.aolsucks.com) (and it’s mirror at [http://www.aolsucks.org](http://www.aolsucks.org))? \*\* I work for a company that has numerous “neg names” registered, including ones for our pre-merger name. Paying $35 for each name is consider a small price to pay to avoid bad PR which could have a much higher monetary toll. As for cyber-squatters and celebrity names, on the outside it does sound like it’s unethical. Kind of like extortion. However, no celebrity is the sole owner of their name. I know that there is at least one unlucky lady named Monica Lewinsky who has never met the president. So technically, the squatters are not stealing the property of the celebs. Personally, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. One celeb, I think it was Kelsey Grammar, tried to start a website, found that his name had been. The domain owner made a pricey demand, Kelsey said, “screw that” and picked a new name, [kelseygrammaronline.com](http://kelseygrammaronline.com) or something like that. An imaginative celeb can find ways around the problem. Besides, thanks to search engines, it’s not like fans can’t find a site if it’s not called [http://www.bradpitt.com](http://www.bradpitt.com). Just type his name into Yahoo and find his official site (if he has one) within 30 seconds. ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_cow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@tiny\_cow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_cow)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/13 "2000-05-10T20:25:23Z")
[http://www.altavisa.com](http://www.altavisa.com) (Yes, that’s spelled right.) [Access Log: altavisa.com Log](http://www.altavisa.com/reports) The hit stats aren’t surprising. It makes me wonder why **[altavista.com](http://altavista.com)** and similarly familiar domain names haven’t all tried to register common misspellings of their names. There IS a site located at **[http://www.altavita.com](http://www.altavita.com)**. Of course, _alta vita_ means something else entirely. No doubt, though, that they’re reaping some benefits from having a domain name very close to that of a fairly popular search engine. ---
**Author:** ![Morgan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Morgan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/14 "2000-05-10T21:27:53Z")
Does anyone else remember when it was [http://www.altavista.digital.com](http://www.altavista.digital.com) ? If memory serves, the [altavista.com](http://altavista.com) domain was owned by some company called AltaVista Technology. ---
**Author:** ![Alphagene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Alphagene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alphagene)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cyber-squatting-legal-investment-strategy-or-invasion-of-the-identity-snatchers/18976/15 "2000-05-11T01:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s a telemarketing trade group with a .org name. The crusader got the .com version and was flooded with email, including a lot from employees of the organization. He picked up a lot of information that the telemarketing group didn’t want broadcast … I’m surprised no one has mentioned the whitehouse. **com** pornsite.