Tricky Little Cybersquatting Question

[draqon]

Quick question for the lawyer types. This scenario is strictly
hypothetical.

I have a friend, his name is Bob. Bob owns the domain Amaxon.com. As you can clearly see, Amaxon is an obvious misspelling of Amazon. His domain gets lots and lots of highly targetted visitors, cuz everyone is looking to buy books at Amazon.

If Bob tries to sell books on Amaxon.com he will probably get WIPOed. But Bob is a clever lad, what he does is he registers the domain RebeccaAmaxon-Bookseller.com and then he sets amaxon.com to forward all traffic to his new domain and then sells books there. Bob is hoping that Amazon couldn't prove that their trademark on 'Amazon' was even slightly similar to "RebeccaAmaxon-Bookseller".

Would this forwarding technique seem legit to a WIPO panel, or would they claim that Amaxon.com is still being used in bad faith? I know that its impossible to predict the actions of a WIPO panel, but I would welcome opinions.

 

[adoptabledomains]

In my opinion, it would take about 10 minutes for an internet savvy trademark attorney to get a list of every domain owned by the squatting party, unveiling the true bad intent....case lost...attorney's kids go to college...squatters kids work at filling station.

 

[timechange.com]

Really? I didn't know attorneys worked for the FBI and serve Registrars with subpoenas to hand over a full list of domains owned by the case they are working on.

 

[draqon]

An interesting point, but Bob is NOT a newbie, he knows perfectly well to list fake info in his whois. No other registered domain has any WHOIS information that matches up with this particular domain.

Originally posted by adoptabledomains
In my opinion, it would take about 10 minutes for an internet savvy trademark attorney to get a list of every domain owned by the squatting party, unveiling the true bad intent....case lost...attorney's kids go to college...squatters kids work at filling station.

 

[stuff]

Originally posted by timechange.com
Really? I didn't know attorneys worked for the FBI and serve Registrars with subpoenas to hand over a full list of domains owned by the case they are working on.

I thinki they can get this lists, it`s snpanames dialog service or something like that, they enter your name and get the list? Is it possbile?

 

[StockDoctor]

Bob is a typosquatter, and not so clever as he is devious. There are both free and paid services to identify him when and/or if Amazon is so inclined. He would not only most likely lose the infringing names, but may be sued for damages. If he's your friend, do him a favor and clue him in.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Hi Bob ... or draqon ... no ... Bob,

It's just not worth it. Period.

 

[RON2]

Unless it's prohibitted in their affiliate agreement, you might have a better case for keeping it if you were an active affiliate and used the domain to send traffic direct to Amazon. I bet you would make a mint too.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by -RJ-
Unless it's prohibitted in their affiliate agreement ...

Yes, I remember seeing some TOS that explicitly forbids its affiliates of using anything that contains "amazon". They HAVE thought about it years ago. You'll have to agree that Jeff Bezos IS a smart guy.

 

[Shiftlock]

I have no doubt that a WIPO panel would immediately see this as squatting. Think about how unlikely it is that someone with the name of Amaxon would sell books on the internet. At the very least, the domain holder would have to present evidence that they do in fact have the legal name of Rebecca Amaxon, in the form of a birth certificate or other official document. Nevermind the fact that Amaxon doesn't even exist as a surname.
Forget it, very bad idea.

 

[centerpoint]

I agree it is not really worth it. Besides Amazon may not be your only worry.

I think Amaxon is actually an active online company it may have the .net. If memory serves me it is a directory or search engine that may have a trademark in its own right.

Also there was a company in the UK called Amaxon that received about 200 mil in VC Funding during the boom.

 

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by draqon
An interesting point, but Bob is NOT a newbie, he knows perfectly well to list fake info in his whois. No other registered domain has any WHOIS information that matches up with this particular domain.

Then he won't get the WIPO or URDP notices and will lose the domain by default.

 

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by timechange.com
Really? I didn't know attorneys worked for the FBI and serve Registrars with subpoenas to hand over a full list of domains owned by the case they are working on.

Do you really think they don't have access to the same tools the spammers use to extract email addresses from public whois databases? They do have supercomuters that can match the names and addresses with ease. I would bet the info is already in a database somewhere looking for terrorist ties.

 

[timechange.com]

The only cases where so-called 'cybersquatters' lost a judgment because of concrete evidence that they owned domains for reselling, was when they advertised their entire portfolio with prices etc on every single domain that they owned. That's why I don't advise anyone to do that.

 

[draqon]

no, cuz Bob has a fake email address at hotmail that he checks regularly. All UDRP stuff is naturally sent via email.

Originally posted by adoptabledomains


Then he won't get the WIPO or URDP notices and will lose the domain by default.

 

[draqon]

Amaxon was just an example, bob's domain is something different.

Originally posted by centerpoint
I agree it is not really worth it. Besides Amazon may not be your only worry. ..[clip] I think Amaxon is actually an active online company it may have

Bob told me that he appreciates what people have told him so far, but he hasn't heard from any lawyers yet. Any courageous enough to comment? Would Bob probably or probably not survive a UDRP?

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by draqon
but he hasn't heard from any lawyers yet.

What's to hear? Just ask yourself this - How would you defend the ownership of the domain in WIPO or NAF case? You would claim that your legal name just happens to be very close to that of the complainant? What proof would you present? There have been UDRP cases like this, and they hinge on the evidence that the respondent presents. Does the respondent have a registered phone number under the name in question? Can the respondent present a birth certificate or photo ID? This information would be particularly vital in a case with so many coincidences (the respondent is doing business in the same field as the complainant, and has a confusingly similar domain).

 

[Shiftlock]

By the way, you're not likely to get many responses from lawyers on this forum, because you're essentially asking for advice on how to commit fraud.

 

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by draqon
no, cuz Bob has a fake email address at hotmail that he checks regularly. All UDRP stuff is naturally sent via email.

You mean a REAL email address at hotmail. In that case a name can be put to it if necessary. Also, If he gets the UDRP notice, will he just ignore it? If so, same outcome. If not, you have to put up a defense.

 

[namegame]

It also depends on how the company that is being cybersquatted wants to treat it. I know that Amazon.com is not your real example but lets go back to it for example's sake. Amazon.net and Amazon.org or not owned by Amazon.com and to my knowledge Amazon.com has not issued any C & D orders against them. Granted they are not selling books - but since Amazon.com sells everything under the sun nowadays including soon to come domain names (They were just recently accredited by ICAAN) it would be hard not to compete. So it really depends on the company's philosophy and if they feel it is worth their while persuing any action.