Microsoft said that it has noticed a recent surge in the
registration of web addresses that either use Microsoft terms in
the address or use terms that are just one letter different to
Microsoft terms. Registering misspellings of trade marks as domain
names is known as typosquatting. The owner relies on users' typing
errors to draw traffic to a website.
“Microsoft has witnessed a virtual land rush for internet domain
names with the goal of driving traffic for profit,” said Microsoft
Attorney Aaron Kornblum. “Placing a high profile or pop culture
trademark in your domain name is a tempting but illegal way to
generate pay-per-click revenue.”
The company's director of operations for its internet identity,
Rod Rasmussen, monitors the use of Microsoft terms online. He said
that more than 2,000 addresses a day are registered using Microsoft
related terms, and that 75% of those are owned by professional
domain name holding businesses.
The company is taking action against three people it believes
are conducting a business in trade mark violating domain names. One
suit alleges that Jason Cox of Albuquerque, Daniel Goggins of
Provo, Utah and John Jonas of Springville, Utah registered 324
domain names targeting Microsoft. That suit has been filed with the
US District Court of Utah.
Dan Brown of Long Beach, California is named in a second suit,
filed in the District Court of California. It accuses Brown of
registering 85 domain names that target Microsoft.
Microsoft's legal basis for the claim is the 1999 trade mark law
the Lanham Act. One part of that Act, the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, allows damages of up to $100,000 to be
awarded against anyone who registers domains "identical to,
confusingly similar or dilutive of" a trade mark in bad faith and
with intent to profit.
Microsoft is also attempting to uncover the identity of a number
of further alleged cybersquatters who are using privacy mechanisms
to remain anonymous. The company will issue subpoenas to registrars
of domain names. “The purpose of this legal action is to unmask the
now anonymous registrants of infringing domain names,” Kornblum
says.
In the UK, court action against cybersquatters and typosquatters
is possible and a court can award damages. The UK does not have an
equivalent to the Anticybersquatting Act. Instead, a brand owner
would rely on the remedies of trade mark infringement and passing
off. Damages are not punitive; rather, they will reflect the loss
to the trade mark owner.
Arbitration proceedings before the World Intellectual Property
Organisation and other accredited organisations are a more popular
route for cybersquatting actions because they tend to be faster and
cheaper than court action. But no damages can be awarded in WIPO
rulings.
