Domain-Name Wars, Rise of the Cybersquatters

CWmike writes "When FreeLegoPorn.com began publishing pornographic images created with Lego toys, Lego acted quickly. "The content available on the site consisted of animated mini-figures doing very explicit things. We were not amused," says Peter Kjaer, an attorney for Denmark-based Lego. Lego didn't go to court. Instead it filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favor. The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules. But it's not just Lego and Verizon that are suffering. Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups. And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation. Cybersquatting activity rose by 18% last year, with a documented 440,584 cybersquatting sites in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to MarkMonitor's annual Brandjacking Index report. And WIPO cited an 8% jump in dispute filings in 2008, to 2,329 complaints — a new record. Now, ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010."

freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting

[Delusion_]

freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting. It's parody. The difference is crucial.

Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.

IMHO

[Jaysyn]

It sounds like LEGO are being IP bullies. If they can do that to FreeLegoPorn.com, they can probably do it to LEGOSucks.com.

Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting

[morgan_greywolf]

Parody doesn't protect the clearly illegal use of Lego's trademarked name.in the domain name.

Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting

[Delusion_]

Trademark infringement should definitely be protected by fair use. Parody is fair use. The courts have not been consistent on this issue, however.

Citation Needed

[kbolino]

"And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation."

Apparently, proving this statement is left as an exercise for the reader.

Not FreeLegoPorn, but real cybersquatting.

[Adrian Lopez]

Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com, at least that was being used to host legitimate content. What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them, or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages (which I consider a form of DNS spam).

Re:The way it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

1) Many legit companies own many domain names. I doubt Google really cares about all of its 10K domain names, but even at 30 (a movie studio may have one for each movie, perhaps?) it would cost 35 billion dollars.

Did you know that Google owns about 10,000 domain names? It'll only cost them $6.9827209090826543470930975693925e+3011

2) Shell companies.

Re:The way it should be

[Minwee]

Well, it's a good thing there are 10,000 other domain squatters with very similar names all sharing the same PO box with me. This way we can each just buy one for the lowest price.

Re:The way it should be

[bwhaley]

One could argue that this is abusing the domain name system's original intent. To continue your example, why does Ford need taurus.com, fusion.com, mustang.com, etc? They should be using subdomains: taurus.ford.com. mustang.ford.com. The make and model are both instantly more recognizable, as is the Ford brand in general.

The Internet would be a better place if the marketing people would focus on marketing problems and let the technology people implement solutions.

Re:The way it should be

[gurps_npc]

You are obviously not a math major. Doubling 50 times is prohibitively expensive. Try it at 1 cent. 1 =1, 2 = 2, 3 = 4, 4 = 8, 5 = 16, 6 = 32, 7 = 64, 8 = 128, 9 = 256, 10 = 512, 11 = $10 and 24 cents, drop the pennies. so each 10 = x1000. 21= $10,000 (plus change) 31= $10,000,000 (plus change) 41 = $10 billion (plus change) 51 would be $10 trillion (plus change). I doubt ford could pay for 30 domains using this silly idea, even starting at 1 penny.

Evil cybersquatters

[tonyreadsnews]

I honestly don't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters. At least not the point where their legs should broken, etc...
Sure, they may not be making as good a use as you might, but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away.
Now, if it is a site that is fraudulent, I can understand that, but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting. I can also understand trademark infringement (to some extent) but this whole "my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me" seems a little over the top.

Re:I'm not a violent person

[meta-monkey]

I hear you. I've got a product I'd like to sell, I could think up a dozen decent domain names for the site, and every one of them is taken, and parked. Not being used, just sitting there. I contacted the owner of my favorite, and he wanted $20,000 to sell the domain. I offered $300. I just don't think the system is supposed to work like that. There needs to be some kind of regulation that you have to register a domain with the intent of doing something with it, and not merely speculating on price. The domain name system should not be the New York Stock Exchange.

Re:Evil cybersquatters

[meta-monkey]

The problem is that their activities are contrary to the intended use of the DNS system. The idea is you register a domain name so people can easily find your home page/product/service/university/chess club/whatever. Instead, you have squatters and domain speculators who have bought up, for $10 each, every possible name they can think of that might, some day, be worth something, and they're holding it for ransom.

Imagine you come up with the name for a business you'd like to start or a product you'd like to sell. It's the perfect name! So clever and unique! And you go to register the domain..and find it's taken. And so are the 18 variations of it you can think of that might work, too. And they're not being used, at all. It's not like somebody else just "got to it first" and is using it to sell their product. No, they're just hoping to extort some money out of someone who actually wants to do something with it. And they want an obscene amount of money. Like $20,000 for a return on their $10 investment. Can you understand how that experience might make you want to break their legs?

These people aren't doing anything useful, they're not providing any service, they're just dicks.

Lego is the cybersquatter here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cybersquatters are people/companies who grab domain names and then fail to use them for legitimate sites that match the domain name. If the Lego corporation grabs freelegoporn.com and fails to use it to host free Lego porn, then the Lego corporation is guilty of cybersquatting.

Re:Evil cybersquatters

[Burpmaster]

They profit without contributing anything to society. They're parasites. Society does not like parasites.

Re:Evil cybersquatters

[Anonymous Coward]

So clever and unique! And you go to register the domain..and find it's taken.

then it doesn't sound so clever and unique anymore. :(

Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting

[ntk]

I firmly believe that what you say is not true -- you don't have to litigate every trivial instance of your trademark being violated. AFAICS, this is an urban myth that developed from the potential (but usually unlikely) threat of genericisation through overuse, and the utility of claiming it to be the case by IP lawyers.

I really don't, for instance, believe the Lego porn is going to lead to people using "lego" to refer to any other kind of brick. This is because I don't believe any of Lego's competitors are going to stand up in court and say "Well, *of course* we should be able to refer to our bricks as legos. Did you not see them fail to go after that pornography site that used such obviously fake Lego bricks?" That's why I ask for evidence that what you're saying is true.

Of course, if you are right, please wait five years, and then start your own lego brick company, citing the lack of any court action against this slashdot post as evidence that the Danish company lost the mark years ago.