According to a press release out today, Maccabim.com, a “researcher and developer of cybercrime solutions to protect brands and IP assets, today announced the launch of its Serial Cybersquatter Detector (SCD) Network powered by DomainTools®
The SCD Network “instantaneously identifies both the serial cybersquatters exploiting its members’ trademarks, as well as the opportunities to either initiate or join class complaints through the platform.”
“Members thereby reduce their Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) costs, reclaiming infringing domain names or unmasking the identities of those hiding behind abusive Whois privacy and proxy registrations”
DomainTools powers the SCD Network by supplying the service with up-to-date, accurate information of domain name ownership and typo-squatting variations, as well as monitoring and tracking changes in status of identified targets.
“By leveraging the DomainTools’ API suite and integrating it into their system, the SCD Network provides a turnkey solution for brand owners to significantly reduce their UDRP costs and level the playing field against abusive Whois privacy and proxy registrations.”
Jonathan Matkowsky, the Founder and CEO of Maccabim.com is the former legal director of global brand protection for Yahoo! Inc. and chief IP counsel for Las Vegas Sands.
Personally I would like to see the program in action.
I’m concerned about any system that attempts to “instantaneously” come to any conclusions based on using pure data.
Think about Estibot type of system that attempts to value domain names on the fly, attempting to identify Serial Cybersquatters without anyone eyeballing the results.
For one what makes someone a Serial Cybersquatters?
3 UDRP loses, or 10 or 100?
Or is it just the amount of complaints?
I’m going to reach out and try to get more information on this but at first blush its seems it could spell trouble and identify people as Serial Cybersquatters in their eyes which are not in domain holders eyes.
My initial thoughts on this are;
1. Boycott domain tools.
2. Data Protection Act for farming of data from whois and storage of same. They have got away
with it for long time but time will come soon.
3. Legal case against Domain Tools/Maccabim.com in respect of above where used against European
based Parties.
I am going to look into this thoroughly with lawyers.
Well I reached out to the Matkowsky guy for clarification so lets if he gets back to me and see how its going to work, what safeguards if any they have in place to prevent mis-identification and all the rest before we start boycotting anyone.
Michael, what I object to is the wholesale collection of data by DomainTools, data that does not belong to them and that *May* be being collected in breach of the terms and conditions of the owners of that data (in some cases). I have no reason to “like” Domain Tools and every reason, NOW (if what is said it true) to see them as an “enemy” . As I say ,for sometime I have wondered about what possibility there is for a Case in Europe against DomainTools for some practices and I do not see any problem getting Jurisdiction either (even though they are US Company and *may* think they are safe) and could guarantee I could get Court to issue in Europe IF OR WHEN I find a cause of action.
I wouldn’t read this as a problem necessarily.
Yes, there will be false positives. But there’s no reason to perform repeated manual lookups and comparisons when an algorithm can quickly yield the most relevant data for inspection.
That raw data isn’t evidence. It’s a time saver. Lawyers would presumably still look at the results. It’s simply easier to remove false positives from consideration once they’re found rather than search every individual record out there.
One of the problems with serial cybersquatters is that they may not use the same name/address in WHOIS data or may use WHOIS privacy protection. In just basing it on domain names, it is creating a massive problem for rights holders because the gTLDs are generally global TLDs covering many jurisdictions. Thus what might appear to be an infringing domain name may be perfectly legitimate and even have its own trademark in a jurisdiction outside the US. The number of global brand domains (where all variants of the domain across com/net/org/biz/info are registered by the same registrant) is actually comparatively small. And that doesn’t even get near the issue of ccTLDs.
Very clever business model. This company may have actually solved the problem of cybersquatting. There are a handful of companies that attempt to establish common ownership of many squatted domains by one respondent, but this is the first company I’ve seen that allows multiple complaintants to file a “class action” against a single respondent. This cuts UDRP and legal costs dramatically, and is a nightmare for squatters if enough brands sign up.
The problem I have with it is that (a) They do not seem to have any compunction about collecting vast amounts of data ,which *may* be in violation of certain terms,conditions and laws of certain Countries, particularly European ones. (b) That the term “cyber squatter”has become a vastly misused term that does not many times mean someone who has registered well known trade marks to make a profit from them but instead means “that they own “a” domain that “we” want and so we are going to call them a cyber squatter” . THAT is the gross unfairness of the UDRP in current day.
“This company may have actually solved the problem of cybersquatting. ”
No it hasn’t.
I believe that 20% of squatters are getting 80% of the traffic. There have been companies over the years that have built automated systems to register typos and have amassed very large portfolios. If Maccabim succeeds, then we’ll start to see more UDRPs like this:
http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/1283469
In this case CitizenHawk recovered over 1,000 typos in one UDRP. They were able to do this because the domains targeted one brand and were all owned by the same entity. With Maccabim, multiple brands would be able to file a similar action against one entity.
If their system catches on, and they execute it properly, this could take a huge bite out of the largest players in the typo industry. Anyone can still register Cocacola.whatever, but if it doesn’t get traffic, it doesn’t matter in my book.
“I believe that 20% of squatters are getting 80% of the traffic. ”
Believing is not good enough. It comes down to what you can prove. Very little will change until the enablers (the registries that turn a blind eye, the providers of PPC advertising, the payments companies, WHOIS privacy services) of the monetisation of cybersquatting are hit. WHOIS privacy means that a lot of these organised cybersquatting operations are invisible to simple WHOIS analysis. Many of the cybersquatted domains (especially those used in Link Injection compromises of websites) have operational lifetimes of weeks or days so by the time a UDRP action is initiated and dealt with, they have been abandoned. Registries don’t care because they are making money. Registrars don’t care because they are making money too. Forgive me if I sound a bit cynical but I see this kind of cybersquatting and abuse activity at a website level when I run monthly web usage and development surveys and press releases don’t solve the problem.
Maccabim’s business model is based on the idea that there is a concentration of squatters. The smaller the number of squatters with large portfolios, the better their business model works. I think their fundamental assumption is correct, but I agree, they will need to prove common ownership consistently and accurately in the UDRP process to be successful. There are more advanced ways of correlating common ownership. WHOIS is just one dimension.
Link injection is a whole different animal, and I don’t think they’re trying to solve that problem. Squatted domains are held for years if they make more than $9 worth of type-in traffic per year.
I think that they are trying to solve a problem from about five years ago. Link Injection is a far more dangerous (to brands/trademarks) problem because it is using the trademark term in the domain name in a manner that suggests some official permission or that the site is selling legitimate rather than counterfeit products. The links in compromised sites tend to change frequently and are almost always hidden behind WHOIS privacy and on clusters of specific webservers in iffy data centres. Simple, static cybersquatting is the low hanging fruit and quite an easy target. LI cybersquatting is more difficult for such operations as Maccabim to fight.
In the brick and mortar world it is perfectly legal to open a small hardware store right next to a Home Depot and take advantage of their advertising and everything about them which brings people to the area – as long as you don’t try to fool anyone into thinking that your store is affiliated with them.
The same should apply in the world of domains. There is no trademark infringement with a domain until and unless it has been used in an infringing way, and even then the party infringed upon should not have a right to the domain – in the same way as if the small hardware store is purposely painted the colors of Home Depot, that does not give Home Depot the right to the store. The domain, or the store, could be a part of damages awarded by a tribunal if the trademark holder demonstrates a greater loss than the trademark infringer can or will pay in cash, but any award made without such due process is trademark-holder-biased, plain and simple.
Jon
And perfectly fine on the online world too
Want to buy an ad on Google under Home Depot and advertise your store instead?
No Problem
Quote
“There is no trademark infringement with a domain until and unless it has been used in an infringing way, and even then the party infringed upon should not have a right to the domain”.
Yes exactly right, but try telling most Panelist that and they do not accept it. What is so unfair about the way UDRP decisions are made nowadays is that a Trade Mark is required (in most cases) to start the UDRP process, BUT then they do not let you respond to that UDRP with arguments based on the same TM laws or peculiarities that started it. Further I have found that Panelists tonot take Respondents TM’s seriously at all as a response ,as if Respondents are not entitled to have TM’s,lol
Meanwhile, good companies are just buying their names in other extensions:
Could it be the Indian massive FlipKart reseller which nicely sits on the .com version of the domain name?