topleft
topright
Dell Sues Cybersquatters
Thursday, 29 November 2007

 

Dell Inc. is pursuing a major cybersquatting lawsuit against several alleged defendants claiming that the alleged used numerous domain names made up of slight misspellings of well-known trademarks. This method, known as typosquatting, sees domainers register domains that surfers are likely to hit if they misspell a common web site name. Users that misspell the address they intended to load are then taken to non-affiliated sites filled with advertising that generates pay-per-click commissions for the domain holders.

 

In addition to the cybersquatting allegations, Dell alleges that there has been a cyclical practice of “tasting” domains, where the domainers move a particular domain from registrar to registrar during an ICANN sanctioned trial period. By moving the domains from registrar to registrar the alleged infringers avoid ever having to pay for the domains.

 

Dell alleges that the domainers are infringing on their trademarks and seeks relief under federal cybersquatting statutes. Dell also seeks relief under several Florida state statutes that deal with falsity and deception. More interestingly, Dell is alleging that the practices violate an anti-counterfeiting statute, 15 USC 1114, and seeks statutory damages of up to $1 million per violation under 15 USC 1117.

 

The anti-counterfeiting claim is one that is not typically alleged in cybersquatting cases. However, it is a unique claim that has a serious chance of success. 15 USC 1114 prohibits:

 

use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive;

 

Dell’s allegations as to the defendants seem to comfortably fall within the purview of the statute Dell maintains that the various domains would not have been registered but for the use of its name, which is designed to lure consumers seeking Dell products and services to the misspelled domain name. Of course, any domain name that did not contain a Dell trademark would be equally exempt from the statute.

 

Dell’s attempts to apply anti-counterfeiting laws to domain name disputes may be a new idea, but it is an idea that has some teeth. If the court agrees with Dell that the statutes should apply, it would be a substantial boon to trademark holders and a serious blow to domain name prospectors.




Was this CyberLaw article useful? Please share it:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Slashdot!Netscape!Technorati!Spurl!Newsvine!Furl!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!
 
CyberLaw CyberLaw