A
prominent notice is placed on the sites, offering them for
sale at prices that range from $2500 to as much as
$500,000!
The
idea here is that city officials will feel that enough
damage is being done to the reputations of their towns
that they'll pay to keep them from being associated with
that type of material.
It's
obviously safe to say that it's not appropriate to pop
those kinds of images into people's faces while they're
looking for info on a completely different topic.
That's
where the pressure on the cities comes from, and why this
is such a disgusting scheme.
In
essence, the domain squatter says: "Pay us, or
continue to watch as your city's reputation suffers."
Many
would call this blackmail...
The
second variation on the theme is not always legal. When
someone takes a trademarked name (or variation of the
spelling of one) or a famous person's name, and does the
same thing.
For
trademarks or close variations, there's a specific
procedure for addressing the problem. (See the resource
section at the end of this issue.)
For
the names of famous people, there MAY be a remedy. But, it
can be tricky -- and expensive.
For
example, if someone named John Jones registered http://WalterCronkite.com
and pointed it to one of "those" sites, Walter
Cronkite could probably force the domain away from him.
However,
if someone named Steve Cronkite registered http://Cronkite.com
and did the same thing, Walter Cronkite would have no
recourse. It would be very hard to demonstrate that Steve
registered the domain in bad faith. And if Steve's son's
name is Walter, the same is true for http://WalterCronkite.com
If
you feel that your name is likely to be typed into a
browser when people are looking for information on you,
you should consider getting both the .com and .net
versions of the domain if they're available.
It
will cost you a few bucks to prevent the problem. Fixing
it, assuming you win, will cost you hundreds -- if not
thousands -- of dollars.
And
there's no guarantëe you'll win.
A
third version is a bit more benign. It's common among
members of affilíate programs. In this version, names
very close to, or even including, the trademark are
registered. The sites are created to drive traffíc to the
affiliates' URL at the main site.
This
may or may not be acceptable to the affilíate program
owner. If it is, it's a good technique for getting traffíc.
If not, it could get you into hot water. Chëck with the
owner of the trademark before doing this. Less benign is
an alternative version of this technique where someone
grabs domain names that are close to the trademark of a
competitor and uses them to grab competitor type-in traffíc.
This is often done by finding out the most common
misspellings of the real domain name or trademark. Watch
for people doing this with your domain. Here's the worst
version of this -- and it can hit anyone if they have
enough traffíc and don't pay close attention to when
their domain registrations expire.
In
this situation, someone grabs expired domain names and
points them to "those" kinds of sites. This is a
"no löse" for the hijacker, as they will profít
from the traffíc even if the previous owner doesn't pay
the requested ransom for the domain.
The
more traffíc the URL gets, the greater the clickthrough
value to the hijacker. This means more potential damage to
the original owner -- and a higher ransom to get it back.
In
effect, your own popularity is your worst enemy in this
case.
The
solution to this one is simple -- and very important:
Don't let your domain names expire!
Useful
Resources:
If
you find yourself a victim of domain hijacking, there is
hope for correcting the problem.
For
a more formal explanation of the legal aspects of this
problem, visit: http://www.llrx.com/congress
/100200.htm
For
specific information on the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy), the procedure for taking
domain names that are being used in violation of a
trademark, see http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1
/index.html .
For
information on taking action under the Anti-Cybersquatting
Act (A US law that provides for damages in addition to the
less severe penalties of the UDRP) see:
Editor's
note: Author's suggested resource link was dead and
replaced with those below:
The
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
FAQ:
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act vs. Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy
If
you have a famous name or trademark, the best defense is
to make sure that you register the main variations in both
the .com and .net form. The .org is probably only
necessary if you are heavily involved with charitable
activities. Protect yourself. Scammers come up with new
schemes all the time...
So,
keep your eyes open.
About
The Author
Douglas Miller is a retired fire service captain, now
making a living wörking from home. His company
Hundred-Fold-Life is not just a name but also a belief.
