Cybersquatting (English more squatter = Hausbesetzer) is an adverse name for registering terms as Internetdomains, which are not entitled to the registration actually. The Cybersquatter offers this Domains then to a prospective customer with "“better rights"” or a special interest for a possibly quite high price, an act, which is regarded of some as extortion. Because of the identity or similarity with its company name, family name, mark or product name the right owner a high pressure feels suspended to acquire the Domain. From this often unfavorable negotiating position results the often substantial demand for price, which can differ from the price formation at the free market. If the prospective customer has actually better rights, however arbitration and tidy course of law are open to it.

Overview

Frequently Cybersquatter register such Domains and offer them to the person or company, to who a trade mark belongs, which is contained in the Domainnamen. Usually they require a high price, which lies the far over original registration fee. In order to have pressure for the right owner, some Cybersquatter provides the Website the Domain with contents, which wake negative associations for the offer of the person or company concerned. By the fact they expect that the concerning buys the Domain rather to be able to remove also in order unwanted contents.

Most Cybersquatter registers several variants of a Domain, in order to prevent that these by the persons or companies themselves are registered. A Cybersquatter the e.g. eWurstbrot.de registered, registers also eWurstbrot.com, ElektronischesWurstbrot.com, ElektronischesWurstbrot.net and further logical variants output term.

A modification of the Cybersquatting is the so-called Typosquatting, thus registering typing error Domains.

The designation Cybersquatter is used partly falsely also for persons, who register a larger number of Domains without special interest, or generally for all persons, who are interested to sell Domains. Although apart from the Cybersquatting the legal evaluation in most cases results in no objections, (frequently unfounded) moral doubts with legal contestableness are confounded (see also Domaingrabbing).

According to an inquiry of the European commission well a quarter of the asked ones already as mark and/or Domaininhaber by Cybersquatting affected were.

Legal solutions

Disputes around Domains outside of Germany are usually settled to a procedure, which by the Internet was written corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) over the uniform Domain Name resolution Policy (UDRP). Critics criticize however that here large companies are preferred and the met decisions the frequently far beyond rules and the intention of the UDRP to go.

To clarify legal proceedings are another possibility, in order cases of Cybersquatting, but iurisdiction is often problem, since different courts in each case specified have that place procedure either by plaintiffs, who or the location of the server, on which the Domain is registered, is specified to accused. Most people decide for a settlement by means of the UDRP procedure, since this on average more cheaply and than a complaint is usually by far faster. However, which occurs also more frequently, a court can decide the case on the UDRP away.

Some countries have special laws regarding Cybersquatting, which go beyond the normal laws to the protection of trade marks. The USA e.g. introduced 1999 the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection act (ACPA).

The world-wide organization for mental property (WIPO) however already criticized 2001 in a study the legal basic conditions. It is not possible to put with the dominant law situation of Cybersquattern effectively the handicraft. It suggested, an internationally valid creating uniform regulation.

After the UDRP can successful complaint plates the Domains delete let (which often means that somebody else registers it again) or they let transfer to their names (which means that they must pay annual fees, in order to prevent that the Domain is released again for registering). After the ACPA Cybersquatter for call and up to $100.000 can be made liable.

There were also already several cases, in which companies, individuals or governments tried to extract Domainnamen by wrong accusations of the mark injury from their owners. These procedures were even successful partly. This practice is called also reverse cybersquatting.

See also

• Domaingrabbing
• Domainregistrierung
• Domainnamensrecht
• Domain Name System (DNS)
• Top level Domain (TLD)
• Typosquatting
• Reverse Domain Hijacking
• Uniformly resource Locator (URL)
• Internet service Provider (ISP)

Related links

• ICANN Website to the UDRP
• ACPA
• WIPO study to the topic

Articles in category "Cybersquatting"

We found here 2 articles.

Related Websites

We found here 5 related websites.

• cybersquatting - a definition from Whatis.com
  According to the US federal law known as the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting.


• Cybersquatting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  According to the US federal law known as the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer ... Cybersquatting is one of the most loosely used terms related to domain name ...


• Cybersquatting: What It Is and What Can Be Done About It
  A 1999 law and an international arbitration procedure crack down on people looking to profit from other people's trademarks.


• Cybersquatting: What It Is and What Can Be Done About It
  A 1999 law and an international arbitration procedure crack down on people looking to profit from other people's trademarks.


• What is cybersquatting - A Word Definition From the Webopedia ...
  This page describes the term cybersquatting and lists other pages on the Web where you can find additional information.