NETNAMES
VIRTUAL THREAT REQUIRES REAL RESPONSE
Cybersquatting is a common and complicated issue
facing brands with an
online presence. Andy Churley and Chloë
Garrett of NetNames talk to WIPR about the problem and what can be done to solve it.
WIPR: The threat cybersquatting poses to trademark owners has been well documented, but to what extent should it really be feared?
Chloë Garrett: At the end of 2009, the number of domain name disputes involving cybersquatting was at its lowest for several years. Tis decline has been noted. But one and a half thousand disputes have already been filed this year, and more are expected. Tis could be due to either an increased awareness of the dispute processes available, or contrary to common opinion, cybersquatting may be on the rise.
WIPR: Why is the number of disputes rising?
Andy Churley: In 2009, ccTLDs made up 8 percent of the domain name disputes filed. Tis has risen to 11 percent in 2010 so far. Te liberalisation of ccTLDs such as .co and .ee may cause this percentage to continue to increase. Kraſt Foods and Hugo Boss are brands that have suffered from cybersquatting, with the Kraſ
t.co and
HugoBoss.co domain names, respectively. Both of these domains lead to pages of pay per click advertising that generate revenue for the cybersquatter.
WIPR: What damage can a cybersquatter cause to a brand?
C.G.: Tis can vary depending on the content being displayed on the squatted site. Te presence
70 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
of pay-per-click adverts can cause confusion about the professionalism of the brand. A customer expecting to find a genuine site can land on a site displaying adult content or gambling, causing considerable damage to the brand’s reputation. A large proportion of squatted domains are purchased solely with the intention of selling them on at an inflated price to the rightful owner. Tere is also revenue lost through the traffic deviation of customers.
A.C.: Trademark owners need to be aware that cybersquatters can pose even greater risks. Cybersquatted domains are oſten used for phishing attacks or for the sale of counterfeit products. Trademark owners have responsibilities in these situations. If a customer becomes the victim of fraud through a phishing site, they may blame the trademark owner. Te squatted site may be used for the sale of counterfeit items. Tis will harm the reputation of the trademark owner because the customer may buy a counterfeit item believing it to be a genuine product of the trademark owner. Te customer may not be satisfied with the quality of the product, which they will then attribute to the trademark owner’s brand.
C.G.: In the US, the government and intellectual property owners have a collective responsibility to take action against violations of federal intellectual property laws. If a trademark owner is
www.worldipreview.com
©
iStockphoto.com / alengo
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112