|
 |
|
|
The term is derived from "squatting", which is the act of
occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the
squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.
Cybersquatting however, is a bit different in that the domain names
that are being "squatted" are (sometimes but not always) being paid
for through the registration process by the Cybersquatters.
Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than that at which
they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks
about the person or company the domain is meant to represent in an
effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them. Others
post paid links via Google and other paid advertising networks to
the very (legitimate) site that the user likely wanted, thus
monetizing their squatting. As with many controversial issues, some
argue that the dividing line of cybersquatting is difficult to draw,
or that the practice is consistent with a capitalistic and free
market ethos.
Domain name disputes involving alleged
bad-faith registration are typically resolved using the
Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy
(UDRP) process developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). Critics claim that the UDRP process
favors large corporations and that their decisions often go beyond
the rules and intent of the dispute resolution policy.
Many types of names can be rescued. Most notable are People and
Trademarks. Another type of domain name rescue might come in the
form of a major event. (Organic in nature like a flood or
pre-meditated like 9/11.) The rightful owner of such a domain name
would likely be a non-profit or governmental organization that it
could be awarded to. That means: *AT NO CHARGE. (*Some conditions may
apply.)
RESCUED
DOMAINS WAITING TO BE CLAIMED:
NONE AT THIS TIME
Is your domain name on
our "Rescued" list? or Did you rescue a name and want to add
it to the list to be claimed? Contact us at:
domainrescueservice@gmail.com
Has your name been squatted and you don't see it on our rescued name
list? Would you like to post
your name for rescuing? Contact us at:
domainrescueservice@gmail.com
NAMES NEEDING RESCUE:
NONE AT THIS TIME
Do you own a name that could be used for a
better cause ? List it here for adoption! (Notice:
Adoption means to offer the name for use. Not a transfer of
ownership.)
Would you like to adopt or post your name?
Contact us at:
domainrescueservice@gmail.com
NAMES AVAILABLE
FOR
ADOPTION:
NONE AT THIS TIME
|
|
|

For when Your Name
means Squat!
A free service sponsored by
ewhirled!
Has someone squatted
your domain name?
Domain name buying is the new land-rush made of electronic
real-estate. Cyber squatting can be both fair and unfair in our opinion.
(see more info below) In most cases, we believe, buying and selling
domain names is simply free enterprise at its best. Buying and selling
is open to everybody and no license is required. So, for the most part,
it's First-Come First-Serve.
However, we feel there is one obvious exception to this rule that
most morally evolved beings would recognize....
Your name was made famous by no pre-meditated act of your own!
If so, (in most cases) we strongly believe you, or your
immediate family, should have the right to own your name. For this
reason, the Domain Rescue Service was launched.
NAMES CLAIMED:
www. MIKE SPANN.com
www. PAT TILLMAN.com
www. KEVIN TILLMAN.com
www. CORY LIDLE.org
Additional
info: Cybersquatting, according to
the United States federal law known as the Anti-Cybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a
domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a
trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers
to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark
contained within the name at an inflated price. |
|
 |
|
|
Countries such as China and Russia do not view cybersquatting in the same way or degree that US
law does. People often choose the UDRP (Uniform
Dispute Resolution Process) created by ICANN
because it is usually quicker and cheaper
($2,000 to $3,000 in costs and fees vs. $10,000
or more) than going to court, but courts can and
often do overrule UDRP decisions. In Virtual
Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (a
dispute over the domain vw.net), the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals created a common law
requirement that the cybersquatter exhibit a bad
faith intent in order to confer liability. This
means that domain names bearing close
resemblance to trademarked names are not per se
impermissible. Rather, the domain name must have
been registered with the bad faith intent to
later sell it to the trademark holder. This "bad
faith" concept is reiterated in 15 U.S.C. § 1125
and U.S.C. § 1129.
Some countries have specific laws against
cybersquatting beyond the normal rules of
trademark law. The United States, for example,
has the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. This expansion of
the Lanham (Trademark) Act (15 U.S.C.) is
intended to provide protection against
cybersquatting for individuals as well as owners
of distinctive trademarked names. However, even
notable personalities, including rock star Bruce
Springsteen and actor Kevin Spacey, failed to
obtain control of their names on the internet,
which indicates the lack of protection afforded
to the average businessman or individual.
Jurisdiction is an issue, as shown in the case
involving actor Kevin Spacey, in which Judge
Gary A. Feess, of the United States District
Court of the Central District of California,
ruled that Spacey would have to file a complaint
in a Canadian court, where the current owner of
kevinspacey.com resided. Spacey later won the
domain through the National Arbitration Forum.
Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can
have the names deleted or transferred to their
ownership (which means paying regular renewal
fees on all the names or risk their being
registered by someone else). Under the ACPA (Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act) a cybersquatter can be
held liable for actual damages or statutory
damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000
for each name found to be in violation, although
application of this act in the form of actual
fines assessed are few in number. In one of the
first applications of the ACPA, the plaintiff,
Brian Salle, sought relief under 15 U.S.C. §
1125 and U.S.C. § 1129 from defendant Garner W.
Meadows. The court rejected the plaintiff's
argument that "all personal names" are protected
under the act and established that personal
names must be "protected as a mark" for 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(d) to apply. The court did award summary
judgement under 15 U.S.C. § 1129(1)(A), with the
award being the transfer of the domain
briansalle.com to his control and judgment for
attorney's fees against Garner W. Meadows of
approximately $30,000.00. Monetary awards under
the ACPA are infrequent at best, and the cost of
filing a case is prohibitive for the average
individual.
There have been several instances of companies,
individuals or governments trying to take
generic domain names away from their owners by
making false claims of trademark violation.
Sometimes they are successful. This practice is
called "reverse domain hijacking". For example,
little known Heathrow Land Development in
Florida attempted to use their narrow one-class
trademark and the UDRP process to acquire
heathrow.com.
Australia is another example - auDA requires
anyone registering a .com.au second-level domain
to have a valid entitlement for that domain - ie.
a registered business name with an Australian
Business Number (ABN) issued by the Australian
Taxation Office. However, this has failed to
protect Australia from such cybersquatting acts.
Any Australian citizen over the age of 16 can
obtain an ABN (which is free) and use it to
register as few or as many domain names as they
like.
Internationally, the United Nations copyright
agency called WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization) has, since 1999, provided an
arbitration system wherein a trademark holder
can attempt to claim a squatted site. In 2006,
there were 1823 complaints filed with WIPO,
which was a 25% increase over 2005's rate. On
average, 84% of claims are decided in the
complaining party's favor. |
|
|
Cybersquating
The term
is derived from "squatting," which is the act of
occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building
that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have
permission to use. Cybersquatting, however, is a bit
different in that the domain names that are being
"squatted" are (sometimes but not always) being paid for
through the registration process by the cybersquatters.
Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than
that at which they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put
up derogatory remarks about the person or company the
domain is meant to represent in an effort to encourage
the subject to buy the domain from them. Others post
paid links via Google, Yahoo, Ask.com and other paid
advertising networks to the actual site that the user
likely wanted, thus monetizing their squatting. As with
many controversial issues, some argue that the dividing
line of cybersquatting is difficult to draw, or that the
practice is consistent with a capitalistic and free
market ethos.
Cybersquatting is one of the most loosely used terms
related to domain name intellectual property law and is
often incorrectly used to refer to the sale or purchase
of generic domain names.
Technical strategies for cybersquatters
Cybersquatters sometimes register variants of popular
trademarked names, a practice known as typosquatting.
Another strategy is as follows: Internet domain name
registrations are for a fixed period of time. If the
owner of a domain name doesn't re-register the name with
an internet registrar prior to the domain's expiration
date, then the domain name can be purchased by anybody
else after it expires.At this point the registration is
considered lapsed. A cybersquatter may use automated
software tools to register the lapsed name the instant
it is lapsed. This strategy is one of a family of
identity theft schemes including renewal snatching,
extension exaggeration and alert angling.
Yet another approach is "name jacking" (also
"name-jacking" or "namejacking") which is accomplished
by purchasing an individual's name as a second-level
domain name. Setting up a website allows the purchaser
to capitalize on any searches done for that name. For
example, if John Jones has a thriving professional
practice (perhaps he is a doctor, a lawyer, a financial
professional, or real estate agent - or any other
profession which interacts with the public on a regular
basis), there is a high likelihood that potential
clients will do some research on the internet before
doing business with Mr. Jones. If Mr. Jones has been
"name jacked", then someone else owns johnjones.com and
that website will appear at or near the top of any
searches for the name "John Jones." These "name jacked"
sites are typically set up to sell high-profit items
like ebooks and/or various business opportunities and
require few purchases to be profitable. As the
name-jacked domains are set up using non-trademarked
names and they have a purpose other than selling the
domain name back to an individual, they circumvent the
"Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA)
laws U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129. Since people
frequently "google" to find out information, name
jacking provides low-cost web traffic to the name-jacked
website.
Legal resolution
Domain name disputes involving alleged bad-faith
registration are typically resolved using the Uniform
Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) process developed
by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN). Critics claim that the UDRP process
favors large corporations and that their decisions often
go beyond the rules and intent of the dispute resolution
policy. A UDRP complaint may be initiated at UDRP
proceeding with an approved dispute resolution service
provider.
A victim of cybersquatting may also file an
InterNIC Registrar Problem Report regarding a
cybersquatter posing as a registrar.
Court systems can also be used to sort out
claims of cybersquatting, but jurisdiction is
often a problem, as different courts have ruled that the
proper location for a trial is that of the plaintiff,
the defendant, or the location of the server through
which the name is registered. |
|
|
|
Looking for a
good morning prayer?
Try this one.

|
|


Click Here
To Shop Our
Exclusive & Patriotic
Products

|
|
|