Is this the highest payout for Cyber squatters ...

[namealot]

Do you think they were a little annoyed

Cyber squatters were sent a clear warning on th 27th after a US federal court upheld a $33m (£20m) ruling against a company accused of registering and monetising web addresses relating to communications giant Verizon.

OnlineNIC was found guilty of registering numerous sites, such as verizononline.com and accountverizonwireless.com, which the judge ruled had infringed Verizon's trademarks.


Anyone think that there could be a lot more interest in setting up in the uk (plaintiffs registering more varied type trademarks possibly throughout the world) for some of the companies ...?



Full Report Verizon awarded millions in cyber squatting case

 

[devolution]

I think they would rather set up in a country with non-extradition laws plus poor copyright/tm laws...

 

[namealot]

Yes I agree squatters would look at registering to companies based in more obscure jurisdictions, I meant plaintiffs registering more varied type trademarks here and possibly throughout the world (Changed my post I realise it didn’t make that clearer)

 

[retired_member6]

Well there's no excuse for registering verizon is there?

 

[namealot]

Yes do you think there are larger implications? whilst verizon itself is a TM/brand name were the domains regged so?

There is the verizonheritage.com a golf competition (may well be sponsored by them) But a PGA tournament,Could they also stop any use of there name with that? could you not mention the tournament itself... Do you think the bigger corporations will see this as a justification to say we are now the carling league you cannot mention the league at all because we own/ sponsor it so to speak…

Not condoning cyber squatting at all... Just not keen on companies being able to say we own this word you can’t use it ? I have seen quite a lot reverse hijacking recently if you wanted leeonline could the jeans makers say thats ours? or jvc stopping anyone using VHS?

 

[jasman]

They didn't have a leg to stand on with those names but the fine is horrendously over-exaggerated, totally out of proportion to the crime. A clear example of the corporatocracy/ legal profession acting opportunistically for blatant financial gain.

 

[woopwoop]

I wonder how much they benefited from these names though. How many clicks/much revenue they generated that shouldn't be theirs.

Maybe not $33m.

But when you add the revenue from all their squatted domains together, maybe it's higher than we think.

 

[Systreg]

I wonder how much they benefited from these names though. How many clicks/much revenue they generated that shouldn't be theirs.

@ WoopWoop, I read a news item about this the other day, if I remember correctly, during the case, they claim to have made about $1500 in revenue from the domains.

 

[woopwoop]

That's interesting. Also they probably had a chance to give up the names early and not have it go this far.

Verizon is calling the case "the largest cyber squatting judgement ever" despite the fact that it is unlikely to recoup much in the way of damages from OnlineNIC.

This was said in the article but not explained. Why are they unlikely to recoup much in the way of damages? Isn't that the $33m?

 

[rush]

This was said in the article but not explained. Why are they unlikely to recoup much in the way of damages? Isn't that the $33?

An article from January with a few details on it:
Verizon's Cybersquatter Based in China - InternetNews.com

 

[namealot]

It does puzzle me they know that the company is in china US courts have no juridiction yet they still go ahead ???


Another one in india this time this one 238 domains and they only want $100,000 per domains although some are ? some are not... Full list and there court report is avalible at http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/verizon-v-lead-in-california.pdf an insight as to how they work it.

"107. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the registrar Defendants directly orchestrate the proccess of providing URDP dispute providers with false registrant information and filing frivolous and time consuming appeals"

And I have never heard of a large corperation doing exactly the same lol

They have Several thousands others, I bet they are not using any that use variations on popular trademarked brands taking traffic away from brand holders' sites. Or doing it themselves when a domain cant be found ?

Check out verizonsucks.com whois owned by verizon says it all