« New Domainer and Blog Reader Writes: | Main | Moving In and Cleaning House »

September 14, 2007


Sahar Sarid

If you think that is bad think of one of those companies, Yahoo, who not only on selling trademark terms on their side, but also monetizes many of these same domains they are so object to.

The main difference between the worst cybersquatters and Yahoo/MSN/Google is the ability of one side to influence laws to support their business models more than the other.

In terms of money, the whole domain industry is a fraction of any of these partners. This isn't a traffic issue, confusion issue, or anything of that sort. The fight here is purely on eyeballs and eyeballs only. If cybersquatters don't get typo or sensitive traffic, the search engines do, and then monetize.

***FS*** I basically agree with that. I don't like overt and deliberate cybersquatting.. But i do not think it's fair or equitable that search-engines, browser manufacturers etc.. are permitted to do the exact same thing (from a user perspective) and get away with it while the individual name holder (cybersquatter in this example) is punished. There is a glaring inequity here. Its just an illogical imbalance. If they outlawed trademark monetization on the "search" and Browser side with the same vigor as on the domain sde.. You'd never hear me post about this.


Frank....Google & Yahoo, in my humble opinion, are without any question, guilty of anti-competitive activity. With the strangle hold they have on the search business, and then to do what they do with names such as many you have....all it is going to take is some sharpy attorney and you are going to be building more than one house in the Caymans. Probably one in the south of France, one in the Rockies, and a few more to boot.

There is no doubt in my mind you are going to get one big payday over this. Keep this post so when it happens you can buy me a drink.

Old School CyberSquatter

I find it funny how everyone is praising Domain Sponsor when it is well known in the industry that %80-%90 of their revenue comes form cybersquatted domains.

Their complicity in monetizing trademarks is no different from being a cybersquatter.

A few smart lawyers are going to figure this out soon. Expect a huge class action lawsuit.

The Microsoft browser issue is slightly different. Domain Sponsor is complicit, where as Microsoft has many defenses.


What I find even more alarming is the decision about chocolatekiss.com. Am I the only one who thinks the decision to award this domain name to Hershey is one step closer to the slippery slope for all domainers?

And the decision that the owner of univision.tv wanted "too much" money - whooeee. "Too much" is apparently defined as "more than Univision wants to pay for it." Property prices are set by the perceived value to the purchasing party. The determination that it's only worth what it costs to develop it is like saying my million-dollar California home is only worth the $350K it took to build the house.


Yeah I just lost NAF only because I asked more than "out of pocket costs". For these "academic commies" panelists more than $7 for a domain is a robbery. Should I ignore that email I would win. Lesson learned: ignore all unsolicited emails.


Hi Frank,

You talk about trademark and generic names, but what is a trademark?

Would you go for typos from a site like (madeup name) delightfulcheese.com?



***FS*** It depends on whether there is a secondary meaning in there or if people are really only coming because of said cheese co. I know folks who have bought typos of TM's such as delightfulcheese.com where there is a cheese company that has built a brand people seek.. but said domain registrant is completely unaware of said TM and bought the name for the generics 'delightful' and 'cheese' .. its a fine line.. we're not talking about world famous marks here.

The comments to this entry are closed.