Why Is Pool.com Featuring (Probable) Typo Squatting Domain Names In Its Daily Sales Emails?

http://www.semportland.com/domain/why-is-poolcom-featuring-probable-typosquatting-domain-names-in-its-daily-sales-emails/

Todd Mintz raises an excellent question..  Selling TM intent domains has been going on since before Michael Arrington was the CEO at Pool.  I suspect it has less to do with "design" on Pool.com's part and more to do with the sheer volume of names expiring.  You can only prescreen so far. Still, a rudimentary filter or diclosure relating to trademarks would not be that difficult and would probably help as this industry matures.

Comments

[Todd Mintz]

Thanks for the link and comment, Frank.

We're engaged in a huge battle to prove the legitimacy of domaining and little things like this can be used against us in the battle.

Pool has plenty of good names that it can feature in its emails without showing ones that are TM questionable.

[Richard Schreier]

Hey Todd (Frank by cc),

You raise an interesting question about domain availability alert lists. Our systems are geared to the specific requests of our customers. We don’t make any value judgments about domains nor do we assess the potential for typosquatting. That is a matter for our customers to decide. As you point out in your blog, it would be a difficult filter to implement in the drop itself but you should understand that Pool.com focuses our acquisition engines on domains that have been back-ordered by customers.

You rightly point out that the definitions of ““typosquatting” (and “cybersquatting”) are legally murky.” More importantly, it is very possible that similar intellectual property is in fact shared by multiple people in which case it is up to the UDRP process to arbitrate who has the more qualified claim. I am reminded of the famous case where Microsoft sued a young Canadian teen whose full name was “confusingly similar” (Mike Rowesoft) to their trademark. I’m sure many such cases exist particularly when you consider the community that the internet now serves. I could also site a number of examples of some of our compatriots in the business of hosting PPC sites who rarely disallow domains to be hosted as suspected typosquatting properties unless they get a specific complaint from a rights holder.

In the past, we have investigated the possibility of filtering specific domain strings as a service to rights holders to prevent domains from re-entering the market. But few, if any, are willing to commit financial resources to the process. And again, occasionally there are domain purchasers that are very willing to defend their claim to a domain that others may assert as being “typosquatting.” Ultimately, it really is the choice of customers.

By the way, thanks also for the positive remarks about the format of our emails; we welcome your ongoing comments and suggestions. As a minimum you’ll see a small change in our emails reflecting Frank’s suggestion.

Richard Schreier
CEO, Pool.com

[Forrester]

These auction venues (could) stop these auctions of infringing domains "if" they wanted to.

And the TM holders, could monitor these domain lists as easily as you or I do as well, and have them removed and/or register them themselves.

It is obvious they (the Auction venues)don't care about stopping the auctions, nor do the registrars do anything- to (Stop) having these domains that are spun up from their db of popular terms/keywords that include TM terms/phrases...be offered up for registration.

It still amazes me that when I check a Domain at Fabulous, it will put up "Text Availability" domains, that are absolutely obvious (or close to obvious) TM Infringing domains avail to reg.

This from a company that goes out of its way to remove any domain, that "Might" be perceived as semi or potentially infringing from their Parking program, or servers!!

I just did a search(at FAB) for "no hassle" in .com and the 2nd domain they offered up was CapitalOneNoHassleCard.com a few down is a typo of the same TM infringer CapitolOneNoHassleCard.com then a plural
CapitalOneNoHassleCards.com....

Capital One is TM'd obviously..and they also have a TM on No Hassle Reward(s) Card

Having these domains pop up in results: May give the perception (to the registrant) that since they show them as available they are OK to register.... by a few noobs or enough people...to keep the practice prevalent and pervasive.

NOTE_ I am not singling FAB out here (at all) all the registrars I have used do the same thing!!!!!

They (ALL) could very easily have an updateable data base, accessible by TM holders, to add TM terms/phrases to, to have them removed from search results. But they don't!

And these drop Auction venues could do the same.

If the TM holders do not allocate the funds necessary to pay for their legal teams to monitor these auctions and have the domains removed -

(that they realistically should have already claimed via a UDRP ,if, they were so infringing in the first place)

then they are not doing their own due diligence, protecting their perceived trademark, if that is true, then maybe these Perceived as infringing domains, aren't really realistically...that infringing ...after all...or just not worth their time/money...because if they don't think they are worth going after...who would? (Noobs that have never had a C&D?)

And thus why should anyone believe they would go after them if they register them.

I want to know why those infringing domains I listed up there, have not been registered by the TM holder...whats their excuse? they want to spend $1500 on a UDRP, rather than a $7.00 Reg fee? They want work for next year?

Is a Companies persistent (lack of Diligence) in Protecting their TM(s), by not Monitoring these Auction lists...grounds for dismissal of a UDRP? It should be.