A “cybersquatter” is a person who registers large quantities of internet domain names in the hopes that they can resell them at premium prices. A cybersquatter’s “portfolio” of domains, before they are sold, is often set up with third-party companies who provide advertising services. In this way, a cybersquatter can earn money off of the domains they own before selling them. Cybersquatting, on its own, can be a legitimate and lucrative business, but cybersquatters have an unfortunate tendency to frequently infringe on the trademarks and service marks of other companies. This infringement is done for two reasons: first, in the hopes that the legitimate owner of the mark will purchase the internet domain name at an inflated price and, second, in the hopes that internet visitors looking for the mark’s legitimate owner will be fooled into clicking on advertising and generating revenue for the squatter.

Colleges and universities, because they have access to .edu domains and leave other top-level domains unregistered, are heavily victimized by cybersquatters. You only have to look at an example of a squatted domain to see the danger they pose.

In particular, Robert Wolfson of Las Vegas, Nevada has registered a very large number of infringing domain names (here is an example of a Wolfson domain). He owns no less than 39 domains that misuse the marks of 28 of North Carolina’s 36 independent colleges and universities (not to mention untold numbers of domains misrepresenting institutions nationwide). Wolfson contracts with Australia-based company DBS Administration Pty. Ltd., operators of fabulous.com, to provide pay-per-click advertising and to broker each of these domains. Not only is Wolfson earning money at the expense of these schools’ brands, but he would also sell these domains to any unsavory individuals that sought to buy them. In the past, such domains have been used frequently in fraud schemes and “phishing” campaigns that can lead to identity theft. Wolfson also provided incorrect contact information when registering the domains–giving the Las Vegas information number 702-555-1212 as his own. However, his address seems to be correct and is corroborated by other public records.

Fortunately, the law is in favor of the rightful owners of these marks. Usually a cease and desist letter with a demand to transfer the domain is enough to convince a squatter to give up the offending domains, but a victimized institution can also take action under either The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) or ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). There are lawyers who specialize in internet and domain name action who are most familiar with pursuing legal action under the ACPA and UDRP. While a UDRP action is quickest and has the least initial expense, a lawsuit under the ACPA is the only way to collect damages or seek other injunctions. In addition to securing these domains, Wolfson’s continuing registration of domains with a false phone number may expose him to action under the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act if the bill is passed, but the bill has been in committee for more than two years.

Relevant contact information:

[At time of writing, Robert Wolfson's address was publicly available.]

Fabulous.com
DBS Administration Pty. Ltd.
GPO Box 278
Brisbane, QLD 4001 AU

Information about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255.IS:/

Information about ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

Information about the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.3754:/

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 am and is filed under Branding, Higher Education. It has been viewed 3895 times. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

From ‘A Softer World’

There is an argument made against privacy that says someone who isn’t engaged in criminal behavior has nothing to hide. This method of thinking allowed the US government to slowly sap away our civil liberties in the wake of the 9/11 attacks–many have just accepted that trading privacy for security is acceptable and used the “nothing to hide” argument to rationalize what was, essentially, a decision based on fear. However, limiting the government’s ability to intrude in our private lives is easy compared with attempting to control how personal information spreads on the internet via gossip. Rather than spies or wiretaps, gossip is often gathered by those we trust and spread online by people who don’t understand or appreciate the potential for the damage it can do. In reality, privacy is about much more than concealing wrongdoing.

Internet-based abuse (‘cyberbullying’) and privacy / relationship issues are still massively misunderstood. The complexities of online sociality are probably the biggest ‘generational divide’ between modern teens and adults. To help put it in perspective a bit, here are some numbers…

I HAVE A MYSPACE ACCOUNT!!1!