I know that if you typo squat, you can instantly be made to hand over the domain to the company that owns the original keyword (case precedent). In all of the cases I've seen, the worst outcome is being forced to hand over the domain (I've looked through quite a few) for free, and that much of the law was designed to prevent people from essentially blackmailing companies into paying them for a typo or their own trademarks. But I'd like to know if there is a precedent where someone registered a typo, and I mean a real typo that does not contain the trademark within it, made money off it (like from ads for example), and was forced to pay money because of it? And why is handing over the domain such a big deal that people fight lawsuits over it. Why not just give the company their domain already? I don't get it. I'm basically wondering if the money restitution part of trademark doesn't apply to typo's? (while there is still a seperate law that does make those typo people hand over their domains) and if it does, if anyone knows of *any* case where someone who owned a typo of a domain was forced to pay restitution (or earnings)? The case law might come in handy, I need to know if there is a precedent of having them pay *anything* for owning a typo! like ferizon.com or something you know? Otherwise is the most I can do simply to demand they give me the domain (after spending money on a legal fight?) ? Has "their profits" or restitution ever been sought and won from a *typo* of a trademark? (thus not a true trademark since it is a typo)
You are asking the WRONG people. That sounds like a question for lawyer.com or somebody who has real world knowledge of the subject. That one there? Sounds like a hair-splitter to me. Who knows, some yayhoo (LMAO) might take a stab at it, but I doubt they have any legitimate answers unless they have had the experience themselves.
I actually think this is a good place to ask since this is the type of place (no offense, legal section of a site for people trying to make money off the web) that has plenty of typo squatters residing in it. I'd like to know if any of them have messed with the big dogs and what the big dogs are doing to them (like myspace who started "suing" people even *with* the full trademark perfectly spelled, but even then they only asked for the domain to be transferred and no monetary damages). heck there are probably professional typo squatters here... granted they might not want to speak up about it, but I'd really appreciate it. I'm just wondering if it's even *possible* or has ever happened, that a company successfully sued for damages, restitution, or whatever. You don't even have to be a squatter to tell me, I've been googling all day and just curious if anyone else can find me some reference online or whatnot. Maybe some blog post about some guy getting sued for having a typo. Anything. Just want to know if anyone's been sued for having a typo, and if they were ever demanded, successfully or not, to fork over money basically. If the big boys did it, they would stir up some commotion I'm sure and someone here would know of it. If they didn't do it, then us small fries have no chance (our resources are much more limited) at it.
Obviously, you must be in the wrong place... Like I said. Nobody is saying a word so far. I would venture a guess that there are not as many "squatters" around here as you may be led to believe. It is a risky behavior that few brag about. Much like unprotected an*l sex... You just don't go around talking about it. (Unless you are at a porn forum) If you get my drift?
There have been a lot of cybersquatting lawsuits where profits and damages have been sought. Many times the opportunity is given to just turn over the domain, however, every trademark holder is different and some are much more aggressive than others. If they decide to sue you (and they don't have to give you a warning) you can occur tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Generally speaking, it isn't a way for a trademark holder to make money as the people who squat often are small-timers who don't have the financial resources to pay an award. Sometimes you sue a few to make an example to scare the others. Sometimes a deep pocket doesn't care if they spend a hundred thousand with no chance of collecting. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/331601_cybersquatting14.html http://domainnamewire.com/2009/02/18/hells-angels-sue-alleged-cybersquatter-for-2-million/
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'd appreciate if BadBoyzStudioZ stop trying to just inflate his post count with nonanswers and let more helpful users like mjewel who helped with the answer I was looking for. My only problem is those two news stories are referring to people who used a real trademarked term in them, and don't yet have an example to a typo squatter being charged in such a fashion. I understand if they actually use one of my trademarks, but it seems if they use a typo it just doesn't apply the same way in *trademark law*, though the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act still applies and guarantees that I can get them to turn over the domain. I was hoping there was some silver bullet precedent case law I could find of someone having successfully or otherwise sued for money/damages, etc. from a typo-squatter specifically (which get lumped in with non-typo squatters, but it clearly works different legally). Am I right or what? Like if someone had verizon1.com they could be sued for damages because it contains the trademark, and they profited from a trademarked term. But if they had ferizon.com they couldn't be sued on the trademark grounds (since it's a typo), tho the anticybersquatting act still guarantees the company can take the domain from them. I just wanted to see if my current understanding of the law was right and I have no legal recourse except simply taking the domains.
Typosquatting is a form of trademark infringement. Trademark infringement does not have to be the exact spelling - phonetic, misspelled, and similar domains can all be trademark infringement. The court is going to look at the intent and usage of the domain. The link to the Microsoft case in my above post specifically mentions typosquatting. "The suits target cybersquatting or typosquatting, practices that divert Internet users seeking Microsoft Web sites by using similar or slightly misspelled domain names, according to the complaints filed this week in federal courts in New York, Seattle and Fort Wayne, Ind." http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/typosquatter.htm You don't even want to think of suing someone for typosquatting as a method to make money. A large company with deep pockets is likely to fight you in court and you can easily spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and even if you win, you can still lose money with attorney fees. Getting an award from a small-time squatter is one thing, collecting is another. Have an attorney send them a demand to turn over the domain and if the don't, file a WIPO action to get the domain and forget about trying to collect some huge award - I been involved in quite a few trademark cases and the only ones who get a guaranteed win is the attorneys. You can spend $10,000 in legal fees before a suit even gets filed - and then it starts getting real expensive. Good IP attorneys are not cheap and start at about $350 an hour and up - and they don't take cases on contingency.
Typo squatting is a form of Cyber Squatting. Cyber Squatting is also Criminal and punishable by up to a $100k fine (plus whatever civil action happens). mjewel summed up the rest pretty darn good.