Reverse Domain Hijacking
Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting), occurs where a trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making false cybersquatting claims against a domain name’s rightful owner. This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals. Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly perpetrated by larger corporations and famous individuals.
Reverse domain name hijacking is an analogue to the practice of domain hijacking, wherein domain name registrants registered domain names containing famous third party trademarks with the intent of profiting by selling the domain names back to trademark owners. Trademark owners initially responded by filing cybersquatting lawsuits against registrants to enforce their trademark rights. However, as the number of cybersquatting incidents grew, trademark owners noticed that registrants would often settle their cases rather than litigate. Consequently, although the filing of cybersquatting lawsuits began as a defensive strategy to combat cybersquatting, such lawsuits also can be used as a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to.
Read more about Reverse Domain Hijacking: UDRP Restrictions On Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, ACPA Restrictions On Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, Implications
Famous quotes containing the words reverse and/or domain:
“We came home from the ridotto so late, or rather so early, that it was not possible for me to write. Indeed we did not go ... till past eleven o’clock: but nobody does. A terrible reverse of the order of nature! We sleep with the sun, and wake with the moon.”
—Frances Burney (1752–1840)
“Without metaphor the handling of general concepts such as culture and civilization becomes impossible, and that of disease and disorder is the obvious one for the case in point. Is not crisis itself a concept we owe to Hippocrates? In the social and cultural domain no metaphor is more apt than the pathological one.”
—Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)