Microsoft takes cybersquatters and typosquatters to court

Microsoft said that it has noticed a recent surge in the registration of web addresses that either use Microsoft terms in the address or use terms that are just one letter different to Microsoft terms. Registering misspellings of trade marks as domain names is known as typosquatting. The owner relies on users' typing errors to draw traffic to a website.

“Microsoft has witnessed a virtual land rush for internet domain names with the goal of driving traffic for profit,” said Microsoft Attorney Aaron Kornblum. “Placing a high profile or pop culture trademark in your domain name is a tempting but illegal way to generate pay-per-click revenue.”

The company's director of operations for its internet identity, Rod Rasmussen, monitors the use of Microsoft terms online. He said that more than 2,000 addresses a day are registered using Microsoft related terms, and that 75% of those are owned by professional domain name holding businesses.

The company is taking action against three people it believes are conducting a business in trade mark violating domain names. One suit alleges that Jason Cox of Albuquerque, Daniel Goggins of Provo, Utah and John Jonas of Springville, Utah registered 324 domain names targeting Microsoft. That suit has been filed with the US District Court of Utah.

Dan Brown of Long Beach, California is named in a second suit, filed in the District Court of California. It accuses Brown of registering 85 domain names that target Microsoft.

Microsoft's legal basis for the claim is the 1999 trade mark law the Lanham Act. One part of that Act, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, allows damages of up to $100,000 to be awarded against anyone who registers domains "identical to, confusingly similar or dilutive of" a trade mark in bad faith and with intent to profit.

Microsoft is also attempting to uncover the identity of a number of further alleged cybersquatters who are using privacy mechanisms to remain anonymous. The company will issue subpoenas to registrars of domain names. “The purpose of this legal action is to unmask the now anonymous registrants of infringing domain names,” Kornblum says.

In the UK, court action against cybersquatters and typosquatters is possible and a court can award damages. The UK does not have an equivalent to the Anticybersquatting Act. Instead, a brand owner would rely on the remedies of trade mark infringement and passing off. Damages are not punitive; rather, they will reflect the loss to the trade mark owner.

Arbitration proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organisation and other accredited organisations are a more popular route for cybersquatting actions because they tend to be faster and cheaper than court action. But no damages can be awarded in WIPO rulings.