Talk:Cybersquatting

I would think this article could be made better if there were some examples of true cybersquatting. The only one that I am personally aware of was the case of www.ati.com. Back in the '90s if you went to www.ati.com you got "Artificial Turd Industries" instead of the more famous video card maker. The site for video cards was www.atitech.com. The fake turd sellers did not just park the domain but in fact ran an alleged actual site selling fake dog poo. Anyone with half a brain could figure out the actual intent, and a few years later the site www.ati.com would go to the video card maker. I have no idea if ATI sued or if they bought the domain or what, but this, to me at least, is a perfect example of cybersquatting. If someone took IBM.com but in fact that was a site for the Internal Bushing Manufacture corporation, I would not call that cybersquatting as that would be a legit company that sells internal bushings, whatever those are. The case of the fake turd guys is a more blatant example as they had no real intent on creating an empire based on fake dog doo. :-) Rev Sysyphus (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm afraid most of what I've written on this page (I didn't create the page BTW) is not NPV. I really don't care for cybersquatters and have a hard time being neutral about them. I invite anyone who can write objectively to edit my text to make it more NPOV. :-) -Frecklefoot

---

I know that this has been removed a while ago, but the idea that it was ever on the page in the first place amazes me: "Courts have generally upheld the rights of cybersquatters. For example, in December of 2002, the World Intellectual Property Organisation ruled in favor of Virtual Countries, a tourist corporation, which had registered http://www.newzealand.com ."

That was NOT at all a case of cybersquatting. Anyone can register names of geographical areas because no one person or entity can own a name llike that. Courts have shown this time and time again. Who is the supposed "rightful owner" of a geographical name?

And, basically, courts have almost always sided against cybersquatters. To take one case (and one case not even directly involved) and try to use that as proof was kind of silly.

But oh well, I'm beating a dead horse I guess since it's not even on the page anymore.

Dan Norder -- dannorder@aol.com

---

Doesn't anyone think there should be some discussion of "....sucks" websites, since cybersquatting laws are so often used to persecute them? or the trick of making a lowball offer for a domain that was not offered for sale, then using the indignant counteroffer as "evidence" that they intended all along to sell it (thus running afoul of most jurisdictions' shiny new cybersquatting-specific laws) --Random832 00:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Personally, I think the idea is great, but considering the authorised arbiters charge fees of $1500 and upwards, only fairly established companies can make use of this service, even for obviously domain-for-sale domains. Its almost certainly cheaper to just pay off the cybersquatter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.115.253 (talk • contribs) 01:27, October 23, 2004 (UTC)

Domain names "not for the taking"

I don't understand how any Internet company selling domain names can sell you a domain name that is "not for the taking" the name you buy may be someone's Trademark or Service name. Now you get sued and must turnover the domain to that someone, but the company that sold it to you just keeps on selling these names and never have to take any responsibility. I don't think this so called Cyber squatting is so bad, you didn't buy the name, but if I buy it I am in deep Poo. If you don't buy the name you think is yours or the company selling domain names thinks it is " not for the taking" then you lose the right to take it for nothing. This is America right? If the phone company wants to up your bill because you lost service and want you old number back you pay them, you don't have the right to sue them or make them give it back to you, you lost it and you will pay to try and get it back. You cannot sue the person who now has the phone number you had for 25 years. What is the difference? This could be carried over to all type of business, if a store called JUS store was opened in your town then some guy comes to town and opens a store called JUST a store, he can do this in the good oh USA, but he can't have a JUST.com if JUS.com don't want him to. How can this be right? Some people say you don’t own the domain name you are just leasing it. Well do you own you land? I’m sure you think you do, but don’t pay your taxes and see if you really own the land or are you just leasing it from the state? Maybe it's just me that don't understand.

-Yes but its not nice :-) I have been planing to make this site as a project (not for a company or to make profit) and every way you can put has a cyber squatter asking like 2,000 bucks for it. Its insane. Even if it is legal (wich it shouldent be) its just not very nice and stops the little guy from createing a website.unsigned comment was added by 65.96.113.236 (talk)

Proposal for restructure

I would like to add more material to this topic, and I would appreciate comments before I begin.

Some of the detail I think is needed includes:

• Extend the types of domain name disputes & forms of domain name speculation
• Issues leading to dispute (renewal lapses, name variations, rogue registrars 'stealing' names between interested party querying and registration name, multiple parties with similar claim to generic names etc)
• Add reference material:
• Major players
• Important case history
• Philosophy vs pragmatism of buying name (back?) from a domain name speculator
• Statistics, if possible, from dispute outcomes,
• Strive for a more NPV stance, so that the material has a better chance of surviving ;)

I don't think this material sits well under the title Cybersquatting, because it is somewhat more general and because Cybersquatting is not NPV terminology. So I propose to move the general topic under the title Domain Name Disputes, and keep for the topic Cybersquatting only the current first paragraph definition and some links.

Hbachus

Myspace name squatting

[[:Image:Myspace-ronald-mcdonald-page.PNG|thumb|right|350px| screen shot of myspace page using McDonald's Ronald McDonald character]] Is this considered cybersquatting? If you go to http://www.myspace.com/bigredshoes (accessed today).

Most likely this is not licensed by McDonald's Corporation because you will notice if you go to this site that all of Ronald McDonald's friends are young woman that are mostly wearing string bikinis. I doubt that McDonald's would allow this kind of behavior from any of its franchisees or from someone from the internal PR Department.

Does anyone have any references to this kind of phenomenon or know of any domain name arbitrations that have occurred because of this kind of activity. I am not sure if we should all this to this page or is it a new phenomenon that has a different name? Alex756 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A MySpace page is not using a separate domain name so cybersquatting regulations would not apply. That could very well be standard copyright and/or trademark violation though. DreamGuy 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrections on the VW Case

Never edited Wikipedia before, but had to chime in here to remove the reference to the Supreme Court. There is no Supreme Court decision in the VW case as far as I can tell.

Complaintant?

I see that "complainant" has been changed to "complaintant" -- that can't be right, can it? HMishkoff 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Misnomerization using 'squatting' for base

The propogation of this term represents a grave misunderstanding and application of 'squatting' and the subsequent virtual representation, 'cybersquatting'. Where there are practices that could be considered 'cybersquatting', 'domain warehousing' is not to be included -- regardless of intent, the people who purchase these domains do so, from a registrar, because a company who owns a trademark does not buy a domain, or remember to renew the one they have.

Further, 'cybersquatting' as it is represented a US-centric attitude toward domain ownership where the US does not in fact own or control the Internet or domains.

What cybersquatting could actually be: altering WHOIS information about a domain that legally represents ownership of the domain, without confrontation or dispute by its original and true owner -- this is a much more appropriate reflection of a virtual representation of squatting.

If Microsoft puts for sale 100 Xboxes, ones that Electronics Boutique normally has a monopoly over, and I buy them up in a free market before EB get's the chance, is that 'squatting'? And similarly so cybersquatting should not be. --66.91.243.72 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Wikipedia does not go by the opinions or original research of contributors, it goes by how the term is used in the real world. Furthermore, ICANN makes the rules about domains, ICANN is controlled by the US government with the oversight of the U.S. Senate, so the claim that the US does not control names is not technically true. Whether they should control the names or not is a POV, but when it comes right down to it US laws and government rules and regulations and ICANN, with the assistance of multinational entities like WIPO, does control domain names. DreamGuy 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

incorrct use

and is often incorrectly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names

Says who that this is incorrect usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.101.131 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Says the US Anti-Cybersquatting Act and the ICANN name dispute policy, to start with. Furthermore the term "squatting" means that someone is using it without rights. If the domain name is generic squatting is impossible. DreamGuy 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

User:Kennard2 tagged the article is POV, left an edit comment that said the article was POV, but gave now example of anything that would violate WP:NPOV policy. I gave the article a quick reread (and have read it throughly in the past, most of it seems the same as the old version) and can't see anything offhand that would violate NPOV. If no explanation for the tag is forthcoming I will revert it as baseless. DreamGuy 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed lurker redirect

Lapsed lurker redirects here.

This (misleading?) neologism should probably be deleted from wikipedia. If it's worth mentioning at all, wiktionary would be a better place.

ReidarM 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia

The article is somewhat misleading in regards to Australia. Although an ABN can be easily obtained, domain names can only be registered if they have a direct and credible relationship with the business name or activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.29.9.202 (talk) 01:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC)