GenX-ers may remember spending a summer afternoon at the movie theater and seeing the somewhat corny but beloved antics of Marty McFly and Doc as they used a souped-up Delorean to travel the space-time continuum. In Back to the Future Part II, Doc and Marty travel into the future, where the bullying, boorish Biff causes a time-travel paradox when he steals the Delorean and takes a joyride into the past to give his younger self a sports almanac containing the final scores of decades worth of sporting events.
Trademark owners (and here I'm talking about those with U.S. registrations even if they are foreign entities) have a choice of forum for challenging alleged cybersquatting domain names. They can either sue in district court under the ACPA, or get a quicker and less expensive result by filing a complaint and asserting a claim under the UDRP. But to get to a quicker and less expensive result everything about the process is accelerated, and this begins with drafting the complaint.
Who would think that so much could go wrong with something as seemingly innocent as a domain name? As cybercrime continues to evolve, causing devastating reputational and financial losses to businesses and organizations, web addresses are used as a weapon -- and it's not always easy to notice their many faces. In this article, let's take a look at the domain name crime landscape, discuss the current challenges investigators and legitimate registrants face, and talk about some useful techniques.
AlpNames has been sent a notice of termination by ICANN. Unlike many termination notices that specify a future date, the one they were sent has an immediate effect. As reported in multiple fora over the last few days AlpNames had gone offline, and at time of writing still is. They've also become unresponsive. It's on the basis of this that ICANN decided to terminate their contract straight away.
Over three-quarters of the more than 55,000 UDRP cases decided since 1999 have been undefended. Requiring adequate evidentiary support of the complainant's allegations in disputes where the respondent has not filed a response, is therefore critical for producing just outcomes under the UDRP. While most UDRP disputes involve clear cybersquats that are indefensible, a significant number involve domain names that are not clearly cybersquats...
Recent events have shown the threat of domain hijacking is very real; however, it is also largely preventable. As Verisign previously noted, there are many security controls that registrants can utilize to help strengthen their security posture. Verisign would like to reiterate this advice within the context of the recent domain hijacking reports. Domains are an important element of internet infrastructure; their functionality and security rely upon many factors such as their delegated name servers.
Given the number of awards endlessly arriving from Panels appointed to decide cybersquatting disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) (ten to fifteen published daily), the sum total of grievants filing de novo challenges under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protect Act (ACPA) is remarkably small -- one or two at most in any single year; and those rarely proceeding to summary judgment or trial.
It's that special time again! Time to unwind, spend time with loved ones -- and to reflect on another 12 months of progress across the .brand movement. Over the last few years, we've used this end of year assessment and our efforts with MakeWay.World to show you how the industry is being embraced globally -- through a range of examples, statistics and predictions about how the year ahead will be our best ever.
It is once again time for our annual review of posts that received the most attention on CircleID during the past year. Congratulations to all the 2018 participants for sharing their thoughts and making a difference in the industry.
The quintessence of typosquatting is syntactical variation: adding, omitting, replacing, substituting, and transposing words and letters. Since these minor variations are mostly indefensible, respondents rarely respond to complaints, although as I will explain in a moment there can also be innocent and good faith syntactical variations which are not typosquatting. It follows that if there are defenses, respondents should prudently respond and explain their choices because default generally favors complainants.