On forums, social media and the web at large, people often channel their hatred for the so called "squatter" that may happen to possess the domain name that the self-proclaimed victim desires. Behind the sentiments are grave misconceptions about the domain name aftermarket. This may not be worthy of much attention, misconceptions are common, after all. But when the misconceptions are widely fueled by prominent representatives of an industry, perhaps it's time for some reflection. I recently tried to discuss the fact that the main reason that the domain you want is taken is likely not ill willed targeting on part of the current registrant, but that the name you consider appealing was also considered appealing by someone else. I argued that it is not in the interest of the brand protection industry to be clear about this and to point it out. Since the claim that "brand protection experts" may sometimes handle the truth in a careless way was taken as an insult and not as valuable critique or an account of the pitfall that marketing may tend to exploit fears that may not be warranted, I am self-critically going to examine the argument. I did a google search for the terms "cybersquatting" and "brand protection" to double-check if I was off base. Perhaps I was wrong all these years. Perhaps I have been unlucky in my experience or wrong in my conclusions. Perhaps the fact that someone proclaims themselves "brand protection expert" really is rock solid proof that they are professional and will act in the best interest of their clients. I'm afraid that the result was disappointing. I am going to consider the most prominent search results to be most representative of the sentiments at large. I know that this is perhaps not representative of the general credibility and professionality of an entire industry, but it is what people searching for the terms "cybersquatting" and "brand protection" are going to find. The reason, of course, is that the results have either targeted the fears of the people that make the searches, or paid to rank for them. All for the purpose of exploiting a misconception for monetary gain. One of the results is entitled "<a href="https://cybelangel.com/6-things-to-know-about-domain-squatting-in-2024/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Domain Squatting The 2024 Guide</a>". Here's an excerpt: <blockquote>"Domain squatting is when people register desirable domains, usually in order to sell them. There may not be a criminal intent behind this; people are simply looking for similar names and similar domains that match popular brands, products, and phrases. However, while they generally sell them to legitimate businesses, this isn’t always the case since the main priority is to make a profit from reselling the registered domain name."</blockquote> The cybersecurity company behind the statement claims to have 145 employees. I will not attempt to dismantle each and every misconception, but at the end of this glimpse into how credible the claims of brand protection agencies may be, simply re-iterate what "cybersquatting" actually is. In another informative post called "<a href="https://flare.io/learn/resources/blog/cybersquatting/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">What Is Cybersquatting? The Definitive Guide for Detection and Prevention</a>", the author explains a subcategory of "cybersquatting" imaginitively dubbed "domain kiting" in this fashion: <blockquote>"This kind of cybersquatting often involves registering a domain name for a period of time. From then, the domain registrar will periodically renew the domain in order to keep it from being purchased by someone else. While this is not necessarily as damaging as other forms of cybersquatting, criminals can use it as a way to extort money from trademark owners who want to secure that domain name."</blockquote> This firm has 100 employees. Perhaps these are one off flukes? Perhaps in general, "brand protection experts" take care to describe things accurately? But the examples keep flowing, without much effort to find them. In the article "<a href="https://bolster.ai/blog/cybersquatting" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cybersquatting: A Growing Threat in the Digital Age and How to Combat It</a>" another prominent brand protection agency describe the motives behind "cybersquatting": <blockquote>"Those engaging in this practice register domains with the intention of later selling them at a higher price, taking advantage of their perceived value. Alternatively, they may exploit these domains by hosting advertisements and generating revenue through clicks. In some cases, cybersquatting is driven by bad faith intentions to disrupt a competitor’s online presence and cause reputation damage."</blockquote> Above conflation of general aftermarket motives and those of "cybersquatting" and the idea that "cybersquatting" is driven by bad faith intentions "in some cases" seems to pop up again and again. Here's another one from the article "<a href="https://www.peexeo.com/en/publication/what-is-cybersquatting-how-to-protect-your-brand-on-the-internet/#:~:text=Cybersquatting%20is%20registering%20a%20domain,damage%20or%20profit%20from%20it." rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">What is cybersquatting? How to protect your brand on the Internet?</a>": <blockquote>"Cybersquatting is registering a domain name designating a brand or company to damage or profit from it. Simply put, it’s domain name squatting.This practice is becoming increasingly common, with the number of cybersquatting complaints in 2016 reaching over 3,000 worldwide."</blockquote> In the article "<a href="https://www.thebrandprotectionblog.com/2018/03/cybersquatters-protect-brand-unwanted-guests-online/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cybersquatters – How to protect your brand from unwanted ‘guests’ online</a>" the authors generate the following ideas: <blockquote>"The pirates and kidnappers of old have been replaced by their equivalent in the digital age: cybersquatters. They actively troll domain name registries for domain names registrations that they can sell. Some even go so far as running algorithms to search domain name registers for lapsed domain name registrations, and re-register them the same day. Some cybersquatters see registering and selling domain names as a legitimate business. They often object to being called a cybersquatter, arguing they are entitled to register and sell domain names. Some literally hold thousands of domain names available for sale."</blockquote> These imaginative and prejudiced ideas originate from a law firm with some 9000 employees worldwide. I'm afraid it goes on. Here's one entitled "<a href="https://www.digip.com/blog/post/what-is-cybersquatting-and-how-does-it-affect-your-trademark" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cybersquatting: How Crooks Profit Off Your Domain</a>". <blockquote>"First of all, check that the domain is owned by a legitimate business.&nbsp;If the domain leads to a page that says: "this domain name for sale," "under construction," or "can't locate server," you may be dealing with a cybersquatter."</blockquote> Another one found in the article "<a href="https://enthec.com/en/cybersquatting-what-it-is-and-how-to-protect-your-company/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cybersquatting: what it is and how to protect your company</a>", under examples of what "cybersquatting" is: <blockquote>"Block domain names&nbsp;to prevent legitimate companies from registering and using them and to sell them to the highest bidder."</blockquote> Here's my favorite one, since I can't go on forever, from the article "<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-june/cyber-center-the-continued-hijacking-and-ransoming/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cyber Center: The Continued Hijacking and Ransoming of the Domain Name System by Modern-Day Corporate Privateers</a>": <blockquote>"If a domain name under which a company wishes to offer its products has already been claimed, it must settle for a less desirable domain name that may be less effective in attracting customers. Accordingly, the practice of anticipatory cybersquatting in many respects seems more akin to ticket scalping––the practice of purchasing large numbers of tickets to popular events and then reselling those tickets at inflated prices."</blockquote> All of these inaccurate descriptions of course have impact, and it may very well be the case that the public would and could be a lot more informed about the legitimacy of the aftermarket, if these clear examples of frivolous claims made out as truth were not as prevalent. One of the most popular subterfuge reasons to scare people into thinking that the taken domain they need was registered by a cyber criminal is the yearly WIPO statistics on domain dispute numbers. They are always rising. The conclusion is always that the number of launched disputes correspond to the rise of domain name pirates that illegitimately trade in domains. It is a common idea to believe that statistics must prove something. If the number of complaints rise - the number of cases that involve actual "cybersquatting" must also be increasing. In fact, the rising number of disputes may be an effect of the general tendency to do business online, as well as the tendency to launch complaints that is bolstered by inaccurate claims that "cybersquatting" as a growing threat, and not that it in fact is. This is corroborated by the circumstance that the proportion of disputes that result in the transfer of the domain to the Complainant remains consistent. Let's look to the only source that would credibly validate these imaginative claims of what "cybersquatting" is, namely the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the UDRP. When the UDRP was created it was crafted to function as an alternative, cost-effective, fast-tracked route for “for the relatively narrow class of cases of abusive registrations."&nbsp;The scope of the UDRP was intended for clear cut cases. The US congress, and WIPO, did not want an arbitration panel that often consist of a single panelist, and that have 14 days to render a decision, to delve into sensitive considerations about trademark infringement that a court would be considerably better equipped to analyze.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is why, among the three "requirements" of the UDRP, that the essential question of whether a domain name was registered in "bad faith" carries two absolute requirements that must be fulfilled: <ol><li>The domain name was registered in "bad faith".</li><li>The domain name is used in "bad faith".</li></ol> <blockquote>(The other 2 requirements are that the domain is "identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.")</blockquote> This of course means that the idea of "anticipatory cybersquatting" is simply the wet dream of a brand-side advocate who would like to see their clients easily appropriate whatever they may set their eyes on. There have been attempts to implement these acrobatic ideas into the UDRP, this is known as the "<a href="https://circleid.com/posts/20170507_rise_and_fall_of_udrp_theory_of_retroactive_bad_faith" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Retroactive Bad Faith</a>" doctrine, but it was discontinued simply from the fact that it makes no sense. It has no real world merit, no more than time travel does. It would also create a endless rat and mouse game where domain names, the centerpieces of online brands, would risk being lost to baseless claims that don't rely on the painfully logical conclusion that there can not be bad faith if the Complainant did not have rights at the time of the domain registration. This confusion found in brand protection context about what constitutes "cybersquatting" is equally without rapport, and instead run the risk of creating grave misconceptions that are to the detriment rather than benefit for clients at large. As a domain name broker representing buyer clients, I sometimes see the effects. One client recently pursued a dead case and in the end had to pay for it. They were actually lucky to achieve an acquisition at all. This is more common than popularly described, often for the prevalent misconceptions mentioned. Either you had a trademark at the point in time when the domain registration was made, and can field a Complaint that validates the claim that you are being targeted, or you are going to have to buy it just like you buy other things that you need. That someone may want money for what they happen to own or control is not really surprising. At least it shouldn't be. Get real. -Sten Lillieström- Next Venture <a href="https://www.nextventure.com/buy" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">acquires</a> taken domains, or helps you <a href="https://www.nextventure.com/find" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">find</a> a new name identity with the domain available for immediate purchase.

The myth of the "squatter"

Tags