Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting ( engl. = squatter squatter ), and domain occupation or Domainsquatting, is a derogatory term for Registering terms as Internet domain names that do not actually payable to the enrollee. Registration of personal names is also called Namejacking, those designated by brand name as Brandjacking. In the registration of names and parts thereof, which are related to persons of public interest such as musicians, politicians or athletes, may be an overlap of the two approaches mentioned.

Survey

Frequently cybersquatters register such domains and offer it to the person or company to which belongs a trade mark, which is contained in the domain name. They usually charge a high price, which is far above the original registration fee. In order to exert pressure on the right-holders, provided some cybersquatters the website of the domain with content that arouse negative associations with the offer of the relevant person or company. This, they hope that the person who buys domain rather, to remove to the unwanted contents.

Most cybersquatters register multiple variants of a domain in order to avoid that they are registered by the person or company itself. A cybersquatter who registers for example eWurstbrot.de, also registered eWurstbrot.com, ElektronischesWurstbrot.com, ElektronischesWurstbrot.net and other logical variants of the basic concept.

A modification of the so-called cybersquatting is typosquatting, so registering typo domains.

The name cybersquatter is partly used also for people who register a large number of domains without the interest of subsequent autologous use, or generally to all persons who purchase domains specifically for the purpose of later resale. The cybersquatter then offers these domains an interested party with the "better rights " or a special interest in a potentially very high price to, an act that is regarded by some as blackmail. Because of the identity or similarity to his company name, personal name, brand or product name, the rights owner feels subjected to high pressure to purchase the domain. From this often unfavorable negotiating position results in the often considerable price receivable, which may differ from the pricing on the open market. Does the prospect actually better rights, him arbitration and the courts of law, however, are open. While this may seem problematic in moral terms, is in legal terms can not be criticized, however, in a variety of cases. This behavior is better described by the term of Domaingrabbings.

According to a survey by the European Commission over a quarter of respondents have been already affected as trademarks and / or domain owner cybersquatting.

Legal solutions

Disputes about the. Eu top -level domain are often negotiated in alternative dispute resolution ADR in Prague. Especially in the sunrise phase of the introduction of the. Eu TLD, there were a number of disputes, most of which were rejected in ADR due to insufficiently substantiated trademark rights of the complainants. Special gained fame here the case of the Dutch Traffic Web Holding BV, the new brands with an ampersand (&) filed in the name, which is deleted for the application receiving the domain name registration by EURid from the. Eu domain names. So she obtained in a large number of cases before the actual rights holders of cities and brand names the contract.

Disputes to be settled outside Germany domains usually on the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy ( UDRP ), a method developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ) was written. Critics, however, that this great company are preferred and the decisions often go far beyond the rules and the intent of the UDRP. In Switzerland, especially the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO ) is underway in regional cases in the first instance district courts.

Lawsuits are another way to resolve cases of cybersquatting, but jurisdiction is often a problem, because different courts have each determined that the location of a procedure either by the plaintiff, the defendant or the location of the server on which the domain is registered, is set. Most people opt for a settlement by means of the UDRP process, since it is cheaper and usually much faster than a lawsuit in section. However, what also occurs frequently, a judgment of the UDRP away decide the case.

Some countries have specific laws relating to cybersquatting, which go beyond the normal laws for the protection of trade marks. The U.S., for example, led the 1999 U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ( ACPA ) a.

The WIPO criticized, however, as early as 2001 in a study of the legal framework. It is not possible to place effective the craft at the prevailing legal situation cybersquatters. She suggested to create an internationally valid, uniform regulation.

After UDRP successful complaint plate can delete the domains ( which often means that someone else registers it again ), or they can be transferred to her name ( which means that they have to pay annual fees to prevent the domain again to register is released ). After the ACPA cybersquatter can be held liable for damage to business reputation and up to $ 100,000.

There have also been several cases where companies, individuals or governments tried to evade domain names with the help of false accusations of trademark infringement to their owners. Some of these methods were even successful. This practice is also known as reverse cybersquatting.