What Is Cyber squatting?
Cybersquatting refers to the bad faith registration of a domain name containing another person’s brand or trademark in a domain name. In one variation of cybersquatting, called typosquatting, a cybersquatter registers domain names containing variants of popular trademarks. Typosquatters rely on the fact that Internet users will make typographical errors when entering domain names into their web browsers. Once a cybersquatter has registered such a domain name, the cybersquatter can place advertisements on a website linked to that domain name, and collect income any time an Internet user clicks on one of those advertisements. Alternatively, the cybersquatter may seek to sell the domain name to the legitimate trademark holder at a price many times what the cybersquatter paid for it.
Some common examples of cybersquatting include:
The omission of the “dot” in the domain name: wwwexample.com;
A common misspelling of the intended site: exemple.com
A differently phrased domain name: examples.com
A different top-level domain: example.org
In addition to registering variants of trademarks, cybersquatters also rely on the fact that trademark holders often forget to re-register their domain names. Because domain name registrations last for a fixed period of time, if the owner of a domain name does not re-register the domain name prior to expiration, then the domain name can be purchased by anybody. Cybersquatters will snatch up a domain name as it becomes available. This process is often referred to as “renewal snatching.”
Victims of cybersquatting have several options to combat cybersquatting. These options include: sending cease-and-desist letters to the cybersquatter, bringing an arbitration proceeding under ICANN’s rules (ICANN is the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system), or bringing a lawsuit in state or federal court. Whatever strategy a victim of cybersquatting elects to use, that person should not dismiss the serious effects that cybersquatting can have if left unchecked.
Who Are Cybersquatters?
You might think that the typical cybersquatter is a lonely teenager working from his bedroom. Actually, some cybersquatters are large, profitable, and savvy businesses with massive domain name holdings.
Cybersquatters frequently own thousands—or even hundreds of thousands or millions—of domain names, which are typically misspellings or variations of others’ trademarks. Cybersquatters don’t acquire these domain names out of spite or for amusement. Rather, they acquire these domain names to make money. It’s all about the income stream, and if the income isn’t there, the cybersquatter will drop the domain name.
This is how it works: The cybersquatter registers a domain name containing another’s trademark and sets up a website. The cybersquatter displays advertisements on the website on behalf of advertisers willing to pay the cybersquatter anywhere from a few pennies to a few dollars each time somebody clicks on one of the ads. The cybersquatter then counts on the fact that Internet users will type in the cybersquatted domain name into their web browser and click on the ads. Multiply this by a hundred clicks per day, and multiply that by a thousand domain names, and suddenly we’re talking about a lot of money.
Cybersquatters recognize that a single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and they capitalize on this by acquiring domain names that will yield substantial user traffic. Often, these are domain names that incorporate misspellings or variations of the best known trademarks. As an example, cybersquatters register more than 2000 domain names every day containing the trademark Microsoft. As another example, over 10,000 domain names exist containing variations of the trademark Coke/Coca-Cola.
While some of these businesses have re-branded themselves as “domainers” in an effort to legitimize their operations, the line between lawful domain name ownership and cybersquatting is not always so clear. And for every supposedly legitimate domainer, there are several outright cybersquatters operating from safe havens in the former Soviet Union or parts of Asia, who register domain names that overtly infringe upon others’ trademarks. Regardless of whether a cybersquatter owns one domain name or 100,000 domains names, its motive is the same: to generate money by trading off the goodwill of others’ trademarks.
The Harmful Effects Of Cybersquatting
Trademark owners should not underestimate the harmful effects that cybersquatting has on their business and on the goodwill associated with their trademarks. Cybersquatters hope that trademark owners will simply ignore their misconduct as a minor problem. In reality, however, the problem is much more severe.
Cybersquatters count on Internet users going to their websites by mistake. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence. A cybersquatted domain name can easily attract in excess of 10,000 visitors a month. And these are 10,000 people who intended to go to the legitimate website, but ended up at the cybersquatter’s website instead. The cybersquatted website presents these 10,000 people with advertisements, typically for competitors of the legitimate trademark owner. As a single example, the cybersquatted website www.Macyss.com—a clear infringement on the department store chain Macys—displays ads for Victoria’s Secret, Sears, and Ann Taylor.
Nor should trademark owners count on Internet users to re-enter the correct domain name once they have arrived at a cybersquatted website. The fact that a cybersquatter retains a domain name, in of itself demonstrates that consumers are not only visiting the cybersquatted website, but are also clicking on the advertisements. Cybersquatters buy domain names because they are profitable. If users are not consistently clicking on the advertisements, the cybersquatter will drop the domain name from its portfolio.
Moreover, data suggests that users become frustrated with the trademark owner when the user lands on a cybersquatted website. Users expect trademark owners to police the cybersquatting of their trademarks, to acquire domain names containing common variations of their trademarks, and to adopt easy-to-remember domain names. Users become frustrated when trademark owners have not followed these steps. The fact that a user has arrived at a cybersquatted website indicates that the trademark holder has not undertaken these efforts—and does not respect the user’s business.
Finally, trademark owners must worry about the effects of cybersquatting on the value of their trademarks. A failure to police such misuse can result in the abandonment of the claim against the cybersquatter, and even the abandonment of trademark rights generally. As such, trademark holders should not downplay the serious harmful effects of allowing cybersquatters to misuse their trademarks. Rather, trademark holders should actively police potential cybersquatting and take corrective action when such misuse is discovered.
Legal Actions Against Cybersquatters and Domain Names – Domain Name Law & Domain Name Disputes
Victims of cybersquatting have several options they can choose from to stop a cybersquatter’s misconduct and recover their domain names. Initially, a trademark holder may simply wish to send a cease-and-desist letter to the cybersquatter, demanding that the cybersquatter return the domain name immediately. Such a cease-and-desist letter may state that if the cybersquatter does not comply with the letter, the trademark holder will file a lawsuit, which could result in serious consequences to the cybersquatter. The cease-and-desist letter is an inexpensive approach, which can often bring positive results.
Once a cybersquatting victim decides that he or she needs to adopt a more aggressive approach, there are two primary domain name rules providing legal channels for recovering a domain name: the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) and ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).
The ACPA allows trademark holders to file lawsuits against cybersquatters in the United States federal courts, and allows for the recovery of up to $100,000 per domain name in damages from the cybersquatter, plus costs and fees. The ACPA also addresses situations where the cybersquatter is located in a foreign country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. In such situations, the ACPA enables the cybersquatting victim to recover his or her domain name, but does not allow for the recovery of damages. This process is referred to as an in rem action. The ACPA is set forth in the United States Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(d)), which is the comprehensive federal law on the topic of trademark infringement.
ICANN, the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system, has also promulgated rules governing domain name disputes. When anyone registers a domain name, that person is required to submit to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute concerning that domain name, including an allegation of cybersquatting. This binding arbitration is conducted according to ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). UDRP proceedings are intended to offer an efficient process, where the issues are decided without a trial or oral hearing. Unlike a lawsuit brought under ACPA, however, UDRP does not allow for the recovery of damages, costs, or fees.
Suing A Cybersquatter Personally (In Personam Claims Under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)
Where a trademark owner has identified the cybersquatter, and that cybersquatter is located in the United States—or has significant contacts with the United States—the trademark owner can bring an in personam claim under the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). As contrasted with an in rem claim under the ACPA, an in personam claim enables a cybersquatting victim to recover damages, costs, and fees, in addition to recovering the domain name at issue. For a trademark owner to bring an in personam claim under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show:
Ownership of the trademark;
Ownership of a trademark may be demonstrated through a federal, state, or foreign registration trademark registration. Where no registration exists, common-law trademark rights can be demonstrated through the continuous use of the trademark in commerce.
The trademark is distinctive or famous;
A trademark is distinctive if it identifies the trademark owner’s goods or services. Courts consider several factors when determining whether a trademark is distinctive or famous, including but not limited to: the length of time the mark has been in use; the amount of investment made in promoting the mark; the geographic region where the mark is used; and whether there are similar trademarks in use.
The domain name and trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks); and
The domain name registrant acted in bath faith to profit from the trademark.
Courts consider several factors when determining whether a domain name registrant acted in bad faith, including but not limited to: the registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights (if any) in the domain name; the registrant’s prior use (if any) of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services; the registrant’s intent to divert consumers from the trademark owner’s website to a website accessible under the domain name, creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the website; and the registrant’s offer to sell the domain name for financial gain without having used the domain name in for the bona fide offering of any goods or services.
Sue The Domain Name And Not The Cybersquatter (In Rem Claims Under ACPA)
The federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) enables cybersquatting victims to recover their domain names even when the cybersquatter is located in another country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. Such actions are referred to as in rem actions. While cybersquatting victims cannot recover damages, costs, or fees with an in rem action, they can recover their domain names. To succeed with an in rem action under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show:
Ownership of the trademark;
The trademark is distinctive or famous;
The domain name and trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous marks);
The plaintiff has tried to inform the registrant of the domain name of the violation and the plaintiff’s intent to file an in rem action; and
The court does not have jurisdiction over the registrant, or the plaintiff was unable to find the registrant, despite a good faith effort to do so.
To date, it is unclear whether the definition of cybersquatting is narrower for in rem claims under ACPA, as compared with in personam actions. Specifically, ambiguity continues to exist as to whether a plaintiff in an in rem action must demonstrate the registrant’s “bad faith.”
Actions Under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
When a domain is registered, the person registering that domain name is required to submit to mandatory arbitration in the event of a future dispute concerning the domain, including an allegation of cybersquatting. ICANN—the nonprofit organization that oversees the domain name registration system—has implemented a streamlined process for resolving cybersquatting disputes, which tends to be quicker and less expensive than federal litigation. While ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy does not permit cybersquatting victims to recover damages, costs, or fees, it does enable them to recover a cybersquatted domain name. A petitioner seeking to use ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), must demonstrate the following elements to recover a domain name:
Ownership of a trademark;
A domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark owned;
The registrant has no legitimate interest or rights in the domain name, which may be demonstrated through: showing a lack of a bona fide intent to use the disputed domain to offer goods or services, and showing common knowledge of the trademark owner’s ownership of the mark; and
The registrant’s registration and use has been conducted in bad faith, which may include evidence that: a) that the domain was acquired primarily to sell to the trademark owner, c) the domain name was acquired to disrupt business of a competitor, d) the domain name was acquired to make money through consumer confusion.
An administrative panel of one or three people selected from an international body of Internet law practitioners serves as both the judge and the jury in a UDRP proceeding. A UDRP proceeding is relatively quick: A decision is typically issued less than 45 days after the complaint is filed. Notably, a party that files a UDRP complaint and loses may bring another legal action against a cybersquatter, including an action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
Notable Arbitration Decisions
AnthonyQuinn.com
The estate of Anthony Quinn, the renowned artist and two-time Oscar-winning actor, filed a UDRP complaint against the registrant of AnthonyQuinn.com. The Quinn estate claimed that Anthony Quinn’s fame and success as both an artist and actor made his name internationally known in multiple categories of goods and services, including entertainment services, jewelry, watches, award statuettes, and entertainment awards.
The UDRP panel found that the registrant was not using the domain in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain, because the registrant used the disputed domain to operate a website featuring links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites for the registrant’s own commercial gain, which was evidence of the registrant’s bad faith registration and use.
Class Actions Against Cybersquatters
While the idea of a class action against cybersquatters has not been tested, legal authorities indicate that such an action may prove viable. A class action is a lawsuit that is brought by a small number of plaintiffs (“representative plaintiffs”) on behalf of larger group (the “class”). Thus, for example, a single trademark holder could theoretically bring a lawsuit against a cybersquatter on behalf of both itself and other trademark holders who have been injured by the cybersquatter’s misconduct. A class action may be an effective tool against a cybersquatter because it threatens the cybersquatter with liability for numerous lawsuits within a single legal proceeding.
Class actions are possible where: 1) the class is so numerous as to make separate lawsuits impractical, 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, 3) the claims and defenses of the representative plaintiff is typical of the claims and defenses of the class, and 4) the representative plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In the context of cybersquatting, it is quite possible that trademark holders would satisfy these standards. Specifically, a cybersquatter may have infringed upon the rights of a class of trademark holders by registering numerous domain names infringing on their trademarks. Unlike a traditional anti-cybersquatting action, with a class action, the cybersquatter could be forced to turn over a major portion of its domain portfolio, as well as potentially pay significant damages.
In the same vein, legal authorities have postulated that a class action may be possible where the class is composed of consumers rather than trademark holders. Under this conception of the class action, a single consumer could bring a lawsuit on behalf of other consumers who have been mistakenly led to the cybersquatted website. Again, the benefit of such a class action is that the cybersquatter will face potential liability for its misconduct as to all consumers, and not merely to the representative plaintiff.
While the cybersquatting class action remains a new concept, attorneys who are experienced in anti-cybersquatting law have expressed a vigorous interest in pursuing these claims.
Domain Name Trademark and Copyrights
A close relationship exists between trademarks and rights in domain names. A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in connection with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from others’ goods (a service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product). Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. As such, in order to serve as a trademark, the word, name, or symbol must not simply convey to the buyer qualities or characteristics of the goods, but it must be unique and distinctive.
A trademark comes into existence as soon as a business starts using that trademark in commerce. While registering a trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office offers a trademark holder certain benefits, it is not necessary to establish rights in a trademark.
Once a business has established rights in a trademark, it can prevent others from using that trademark—or confusingly similar words or symbols—on similar goods. However, the trademark holder generally cannot prevent another person from using that trademark on different goods, where there is no likelihood of confusion. As an example, the car company Lexus cannot prevent the computer services company Lexis-Nexis from using the trademark Lexis, because cars and computer services are so different that there is no likelihood of confusion.
Trademark law dovetails closely with anti-cybersquatting law. The owner of a trademark has the right to prevent another person from using the trademark—or a confusingly similar variation of the trademark—in a domain name, if the person has a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name. Congress has determined that it is unlawful for a person to register a domain name containing another’s trademark with an intent to profit on the other’s trademark. However, a trademark holder cannot prevent another from using the trademark in connection with sufficiently different goods. As such, Congress has required a trademark holder to show that the cybersquatter had a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name.
Occasionally, people speak about a domain name copyright or a copyright in a domain name. These are inaccurate and misleading expressions. Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Because it is unlikely that a domain name constitutes an “original work of authorship” as used in the Copyright Act, this body of law is not the most suitable for attacking cybersquatters.
Celebrity Domain Names And Personal Name Domains
In most cases, a person’s name will not constitute a protectable trademark because that person does not use his or her name as a unique identifier for goods or services he or she sells. Thus, even when a person has a unique name, he or she may not be able to protect it under traditional trademark laws.
However, this does not prevent an unscrupulous cybersquatter from registering a domain name that contains somebody else’s personal name, such as www.JohnSmith.com. Congress recognized this loophole, and sought to address it in the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"). Among other things, the ACPA prevents a person from registering a domain name that consists of the personal name of another living person, or a substantially and confusingly similar name, with the specific intent of profiting from the sale of the domain name. Therefore, in order to invoke this section of the ACPA, the cybersquatter must have intended to sell the domain name for profit.
In certain cases, a personal name—such as a celebrity’s name—can acquire sufficient recognition to become a trademark. For example, it has been found that the singer Celine Dion has acquired trademark rights in her name because in addition to her fame, she uses her name in connection with a variety of goods and services. Where a person’s name has achieved trademark status, he or she can rely on the less restrictive provisions of the ACPA to obtain relief. In this case, the name’s owner need only show that the cybersquatter registered the domain name in bad faith—rather than showing that the cybersquatter sought to sell the domain name for financial gain.
People with significant name recognition should not ignore the serious harmful consequences of letting cybersquatters register domain names containing their personal names. Celebrity domain names have become big business. Such a domain name can easily bring in thousands of visitors of month, and may present content that is not in the celebrity’s best interest, such as explicit, adult-oriented content. As such, people should actively police the potential cybersquatting of their personal names.
Celebrity Domain Name Actions
Jason Bateman: Actor Jason Bateman recovered the domain name www.jasonbateman.com through a UDRP arbitration on January 9, 2008. The panel found that Jason Bateman had acquired rights to the JASON BATEMAN mark through his motion picture and television career. (NAF Claim No: FA0711001114949)
Michael Bloomberg: Financier and politician Michael Bloomberg was unable to recover the domain name www.michaelbloombergsucks.com in a UDRP action. The UDRP panel found that Bloomberg had failed to show bad faith when the disputed domain was being used in connection with a free speech website. (NAF Claim No: FA0104000097077)
Gisele Bundchen: Supermodel Gisele Bundchen recovered the domain name www.giselebundchen.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Gisele had used the GISELE BUNDCHEN mark in connection with her extensive modeling career since the mid-1990s and had gained trademark rights accordingly. (NAF Claim No: FA0812001237167)
George Hamilton: Television and film actor and director George Hamilton recovered the domain name www.georgehamilton.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Hamilton had used the GEORGE HAMILTON mark in connection with his extensive film and television acting and directing careerand had gained trademark rights accordingly. (NAF Claim No: FA0904001259771)
Kate Hudson: Film actress Kate Hudson, daughter of famed actress Goldie Hawn, recovered the domain name www.katehudson.com through a UDRP action. The panel found that Hudson had established common law trademark rights in the KATE HUDSON mark through her long and continuous use of the mark. (NAF Claim No: FA0910001290319)
Paul McCartney: Renowned singer Paul McCartney recovered the domain names www.paul-mccartney.com, www.paul-mccartney.net and www.sirpaulmccartney.com in UDRP actions. The UDRP panel found that McCartney was the exclusive owner of the trademark rights to the mark SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY and was one of the most well-known and recognizable celebrities in the world. (NAF Claim No: FA0104000097086)
Jerry Seinfeld: On April 22, 2008 comedian Jerry Seinfeld filed a UDRP action to recover the domain name www.jerryseinfeld.com. While the UDRP action was withdrawn, the parties evidently reached some sort of settlement because the domain name is now registered to Seinfeld’s management company.
Kevin Spacey: Film and stage actor Kevin Spacey was able to recover the domain name www.kevinspacey.com from notorious cybersquatter John Zuccarini. The panel found that Kevin Spacey had long-standing common law trademark rights in his name, which had acquired secondary meaning. (NAF Claim No: FA0103000096937)
Stevie Wonder: Stevland Morris a/k/a Stevie Wonder was successful in a domain name action to reocver www.steviewonder.com based on his United States and foreign registered rights in the STEVIE WONDER trademark. (NAF Claim No: FA0504000453986)
Tiger Woods: Tiger Woods succeeded in recovering the domain name www.tigerwoodslifestyle.com based on his United States registered trademark TIGER WOODS. (NAF Claim No: FA0902001245906)
The Big Business Of Selling Domain Names
Domain names are big business. For the past several years, domain names, the “real estate of the Internet,” have generated substantial returns for savvy investors, who often refer to themselves as “domainers.” Prior to the rise of pay-per-click advertising, domain name speculators would acquire desirable or trademarked domain names and then simply sit on them, hoping that they could sell them later on for a profit.
Today, a domain name holder can display pay-per-click advertising on a website, and sit-back and let the money roll in while Internet users click on those ads. A single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and many domain name holders have thousands or even millions of domain names.
The ability of a domain name to generate money through pay-per-click advertising depends on the likelihood that users will type in that domain name. As such, a domain that is a common word or phrase, or which incorporates a well known trademark, can draw in a constant stream of Internet users. In order to make money from a domain name, only a fraction of the Internet users who type in a domain name need to click on an ad. Each click can bring in anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars.
As a result of this business model, the value of desirable domain names has skyrocketed. Domain names can routinely fetch five or six figures. And in 2007, the domain name porn.com, reportedly sold for $9.5 million. The following domain names also reportedly fetched over a million dollars: business.com, asseenontv.com, altavista.com, wine.com, creditcards.com, and autos.com.
An entire secondary industry has developed around the buying and selling of domain names, including a vibrant online auction process for domain names. Several companies now offer appraisal services for domain names; the appraisal can cost anywhere from $10 to $100. Companies like Sedo and SnapNames hold domain name auctions, and serve as conduits for the sale of domain names, and enjoy a hefty commission for their assistance.
“Domaining” is big business, and cybersquatting is not a petty crime. Rather, cybersquatting can involve substantial money and serious legal claims. Accordingly, trademark owners must be proactive in policing the misuse of their trademarks by cybersquatters. The failure to do so could result in substantial losses, as the above numbers reveal.
Domain Name Tax & Accounting Issues
Because it has now become common to spend five or six figures to acquire a valuable domain name, certain tax issues have reared their head. Unfortunately, these tax questions are not always so easily answered. For example questions arise as to whether income generated from a domain name should be treated as capital gains or ordinary income? Likewise, if, and how, does one amortize the expense of acquiring a domain name? And does a domain name depreciate in value over time?
Those who invest in, and generate income from domain names, should contact qualified tax professionals with experience in Internet law, to assess their tax consequences.
Glossary
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: A federal law of the United States, which makes it unlawful for a person to register a domain name containing another person’s trademark with bad faith. Sometimes ACPA is simply referred to as the Cybersquatting Act, though this is a vague phrase.
Cease-and-Desist Letter: A pre-litigation letter demanding the recipient to cease a particular course of conduct. In the context of cybersquatting, a cease-and-desist letter typically demands the recipient to cease using a particular domain name.
Cybersquatting: The bad faith registration of an Internet domain name containing another person’s trademark or containing a confusingly similar variation or permutation of another person’s trademark.
Cybersquatter: One who engages in cybersquatting, i.e. or the bad faith registration of an Internet domain name containing another person’s trademark or containing a confusingly similar variation or permutation of another person’s trademark.
Domain Parking: An advertising practice used by domain holders to monetize type-in traffic to an undeveloped website. A parked website displays advertisements, which when clicked upon, generate income for the domain holder.
Domain Tasting: The practice of a domain name registrant using the five-day grace period at the beginning of the registration of a domain to evaluate the marketability of the domain name.
ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers created in 1988 to manage the assignment of domain names and IP addresses, among other Internet governance activities.
In Personam: A term used to designate judicial proceedings instituted against a person. In personam jurisdiction refers to the power of a court over a person.
In Rem: A term used to designate judicial proceedings instituted against a thing, in contrast to actions against a person.
Phishing: A criminal process used to acquire sensitive personal information, such as credit card details, account numbers, and passwords, by masquerading as a trustworthy website or electronic communication.
Registrant: A person who has registered a domain name with an accredited ICANN registrar.
Registrar: A company that has been accredited by ICANN to register domain names.
Top Level Domain (TLD): The last part of an Internet domain name (i.e. the letters that follow the final period in a domain name). In the domain name www.example.com, the top-level domain is com.
Trademark: A word, name, symbol or device which is used in connection with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from others’ goods.
Typosquatting: A form of cybersquatting, in which the registrant of a domain name relies on Internet users making typographical errors when entering a domain name into a web browser’s URL field.
UDRP: Short for the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, the UDRP is an ICANN policy that provides an arbitration procedure for trademark owners to recover a domain name from persons who have registered the domain name in bad faith. UDRP is a distinct and separate procedure from a lawsuit brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
URL: A Uniform Resource Locator—A protocol for specifying an address on the Internet. A URL can be thought of as the address of a web page, and is sometimes referred to as a web address.
