cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering, using, or trafficking in domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or well-known brand, with the intent to profit from that goodwill. Common forms include typosquatting, where misspelled or easily mistyped variants of a brand are registered, and other domains designed to mislead consumers or coerce a sale or revenue.

Motivations typically include monetizing the domain through advertising, selling it to the trademark owner at a premium, or diverting traffic to competing sites. Cybersquatters may exploit consumer confusion to generate misdirected traffic, damage a brand’s reputation, or gather sensitive information.

Legal responses vary by jurisdiction but generally involve two main avenues. In the United States, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) provides civil remedies against bad-faith registration and use of a domain that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark with intent to profit. Key elements include a valid trademark, a domain registered or used in bad faith, and a domain that is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. Remedies can include injunctions, transfer or cancellation of the domain, and monetary damages (including the defendant’s profits or actual damages; statutory damages are available in certain circumstances).

Alternative dispute resolution under the ICANN Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) offers a faster path: a panel may require transfer or cancellation if the trademark is valid, the domain is identical or confusingly similar, the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and there was bad-faith registration or use.

Notable cases include Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, which helped establish the concept of cybersquatting and bad faith registration. Rights holders typically defend through trademark registration, vigilant monitoring, and timely legal action.