'CybrSquatteRumors'™ 

Here-ye, here-ye: This is a public Announcement for 'all' to know and abide by. 

'CybrSquatteRumors'  is a  pending Trade Mark® 

For the Record:

FIRST USE: 20120728.  FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20120728

Site Theory  - Under Development

 

Used On: 'RumorAdvisor'

_______________

'Rules of Engagement'

 

To Protect & Verify your Domain/Business Name it is accomplished by the following:

1. If you own a domain(s), you need to do random searches on all the 'Major Search Engines' BGY - Bing, Google, Yahoo

 a. If you find in your searches that any other company is using you Business/Domain Name(S) in Key Word Searches - Paid or otherwise, Meta Data that has your Domain/Business Name or variations either hidden or displayed in URLs code or on GUI.

 b. Here is the lsit of the 'Other Search Engines', very good resource..

Follow these procedures:

 1.  View Source Code, print as PDF.

 2.  Save Source Code from not only search results pages, but also URL's that indicates results in txt or rtf files.

 3.  Take Tiff image of code, along with 'Time Stamp Date'.

 4.  Print as PDF every search page(s) results from all engines. The more the merrier.

 5.  Print every URL that search engines find that has your Business Name, Domain Name indicated for each Search.

 6.  Make sure that you have a 'Date Time Stamp' visible  some where on PDF, for verification purposes.

 7.  Make sure Squatters do  Match your Domain/Business Name - 

 8.  Whois ownership Record e.g. Whois.isip-lookup, Robtex or Network Solutions - 'Whois behind the Domain' -

 9.  Go to your States 'Secretary of State' website, search Legal Name of Entity, along with any DBA's filed with 'Date of Issue'. 

10. Go to 'The Way Back Machine'  and verify ligitamacy of your claim.

        a. Print results as PDF.

        b. Due to the Security Problems will Adobe PDF, all PDF's must be turned into a Tiff images prior to Uploading.

        c. Recommended Size is: Still under evaluation....

 

Note: Use a Mac it will be faster to create these documents, you don't need Adobe -

Further Note: We may add additional requirements at any time for Posting requirements.

At  'CybrSquatteRumors'  anyone will be able to do an 'Open Post' at first showing your -  Date/Time of Post, Business Name/URL, Business Location (City/State) and any one of the above 'three' documents that proves otherwise that your Name has been 'Squatted On'. Thereby sharing with the General Public each sentiment. Along with the Short Story, preferably in chronological order of efforts taken to notify Squatter to Cease and desist.    Or if you just wish to allow the 'Public' to view these 'Squatter Sites', Post it - verification is still needed of 'Original Ownership' of Business/Domain Name.

Once data is published and verified by a Volunteer, your Post will be granted permission to upload  referenced Tiff images of Infringements - three (3) documents only will be allowed.  Until such time as our server space is increased.

This site and its content are - For  'Public Use Only'

Send us an email to Start your Post or if your interested in becoming a Volunteer. In Subject line either use: Post or Volunteer -

Soon you will be able to submit your claim for review  by a Trade Mark Lawyer for purposes of defending your rights.

-

'CybrSquatteRumors'™, Retains all exclusive copyrights.

U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws protect all content, articles, scheme, custom graphics and page designs available from 'CybrSquatteRumors'™  World Wide Web Pages. 

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "Original Works of Authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.  Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive rights.  It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright code to the owner of copyright. Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. (Quoted directly from the U.S. Copyright Office Website)

For more information on Copyrights, visit: The U.S. Copyright Office Website or http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html .

No portions of this website may be reproduced or copied without the express written permission of the owner. See: www.whois.is for details.

'CybrSquatteRumors'™ has no other offices located in the United States , any other company using our name is not affiliated with us in any way, and they are violating Trade Mark laws of the United States . 'CybrSquatteRumors'™ was established in 2012, at that time there was no other company listed on the internet that we were affiliated with or used the name 'CybrSquatteRumors'™ as a business name, service mark for any other industry.

'CybrSquatteRumors'™ holds the exclusive right therein.

Furthermore: All rights regarding the use of ''Cybr SquatteRumors'™', is solely owned and protected by common law trademark rights. Any search sponsored results using the name ''Cybr SquatteRumors'™' singular or ''Cybr SquatteRumors'™s' plural; be aware that the expression is "one and the same." By (PPC's) 'Pay per Click(s)' key word placement using ''CybrSquatteRumors'™  that is voluntarily used with any search engine is essentially a theft of that identity to benefit you personally or your business.

The continued unauthorized enrichment is a form of piracy and willful theft, which violates State and Federal unfair competition laws and Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act, constitutes damages suffered including damage to our reputation because of consumer confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of the services or products offered under ''CybrSquatteRumors'™  line of products'.

In addition, the use of ''CybrSquatteRumors'™' in connection with your business entity provides benefits for which you have not paid for are not permitted to use. Continued use of ''CybrSquatteRumors'™' is a direct violation of Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Note: Any distribution of the name ''CybrSquatteRumors'™' singular or plural within any URL coding, Pay Per Click key word placement, on the phone, within any coding, electronic documents, business cards or upon any literature either written or displayed via the internet is considered a willful theft and infringement under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., any violations of our business name could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

Note further: Any Cybersquatting of ''CybrSquatteRumors'™' is covered under the following Acts:

Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 and supplemental comments:

Cybersquatting is the registration of similar domain name(s), which is essentially identical to our domain name, inherently causes confusion, mistakes and deception, and hence constitutes infringement of our service mark ''Cybr SquatteRumors'™' and copyrights, as well as constituting unfair competition and diluting or tarnishing our name.

Additional citations, etc.


In Apple’s patent battle with Motorola, a prominent judge threw out claims and counterclaims alike.  His reasoning for doing so, if upheld, could change the face of patent litigation.  Apple v. Motorola

 



ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers (Domain Names / URL) . http://www.icann.org/ Domain disputes (Cybersquatter) complaints can be filed at:

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies

The following policies apply to various types of disputes between registrants and third parties over the registration and use of domain names. Disputes under these policies may be filed with one of the approved dispute-resolution service providers for the given policy. See: http://www.icann.org/udrp/

International Trademark Association:
Dilution is an injury that differs materially from that arising out of the orthodox confusion. Even in the absence of confusion, the potency of a mark may be debilitated by another's use. This is the essence of dilution. Confusion leads to immediate injury, while dilution is an infection, which if allowed to spread, will inevitably destroy the advertising value of the mark.

Verify URL and name existence at Archive.org

__________________________________________________________________

Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

The term is derived from "squatting", which is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent, or otherwise have permission to use. Cybersquatting, however, is a bit different in that the domain names that are being "squatted" are (sometimes but not always) being paid for through the registration process by the cybersquatters. Cybersquatters usually ask for prices far greater than that at which they purchased it. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks about the person or company the domain is meant to represent in an effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them.[citation needed] Others post paid links via Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com and other paid advertising networks to the actual site that the user likely wanted, thus monetizing their squatting.

Contents

  • 1 Technical strategies for cybersquatters
  • 2 Legal resolution
  • 3 Notable cases
    • 3.1 With litigation
    • 3.2 Without litigation
  • 4 See also
  • 5 References
  • 6 External links

Technical strategies for cybersquatters

Cybersquatters sometimes register variants of popular trademarked names, a practice known as typosquatting.

Another strategy is as follows: Internet domain name registrations are for a fixed period of time. If the owner of a domain name doesn't re-register the name with an internet registrar prior to the domain's expiration date, then the domain name can be purchased by anybody else after it expires.[1] At this point the registration is considered lapsed. A cybersquatter may use automated software tools to register the lapsed name the instant it is lapsed. This strategy is also known as renewal snatching, extension exaggeration, and alert angling.

Legal resolution

Domain name disputes involving alleged bad-faith registration are typically resolved using the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) process developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Critics claim that the UDRP process favors large corporations and that their decisions often go beyond the rules and intent of the dispute resolution policy. A UDRP complaint may be initiated at UDRP proceeding with an approved dispute resolution service provider. A victim of cybersquatting may also file an InterNIC Registrar Problem Report regarding a cybersquatter posing as a registrar.

Court systems can also be used to sort out claims of cybersquatting, but jurisdiction is often a problem, as different courts have ruled that the proper location for a trial is that of the plaintiff, the defendant, or the location of the server through which the name is registered. Countries such as China and Russia do not view cybersquatting in the same way or degree that US law does. People often choose the UDRP (Uniform Dispute Resolution Process) created by ICANN because it is usually quicker and cheaper ($2,000 to $3,000 in costs and fees vs. $10,000 or more) than going to court, but courts can and often do overrule UDRP decisions. In Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (a dispute over the domain vw.net), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals created a common law requirement that the cybersquatter must exhibit a bad faith intent in order to confer liability. This means that domain names bearing close resemblance to trademarked names are not per se impermissible. Rather, the domain name must have been registered with the bad faith intent to later sell it to the trademark holder. This "bad faith" concept is reiterated in 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129.

Some countries have specific laws against cybersquatting beyond the normal rules of trademark law. The United States, for example, has the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. This expansion of the Lanham (Trademark) Act (15 U.S.C.) is intended to provide protection against cybersquatting for individuals as well as owners of distinctive trademarked names. However, even notable personalities, including rock star Bruce Springsteen and actor Kevin Spacey, failed to obtain control of their names on the internet, which indicates the lack of protection afforded to the average businessman or individual.[citation needed]

Jurisdiction is an issue, as shown in the case involving actor Kevin Spacey, in which Judge Gary A. Feess, of the United States District Court of the Central District of California, ruled that Spacey would have to file a complaint in a Canadian court, where the current owner of kevinspacey.com resided. Spacey later won the domain through the National Arbitration Forum.

Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the names deleted or transferred to their ownership (which means paying regular renewal fees on all the names or risk their being registered by someone else). Under the ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) a cybersquatter can be held liable for actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000 for each name found to be in violation, although application of this act in the form of actual fines assessed are few in number. In one of the first applications of the ACPA, the plaintiff, Brian Salle, sought relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129 from defendant Garner W. Meadows. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that "all personal names" are protected under the act and established that personal names must be "protected as a mark" for 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) to apply. The court did award summary judgement under 15 U.S.C. § 1129(1)(A), with the award being the transfer of the domain briansalle.com to his control and judgment for attorney's fees against Garner W. Meadows of approximately $30,000.00. Monetary awards under the ACPA are infrequent at best, and the cost of filing a case is prohibitive for the average individual.[citation needed]

There have been several instances of companies, individuals or governments trying to take generic domain names away from their owners by making false claims of trademark violation. Sometimes they are successful. This practice is called "reverse domain hijacking". For example, little known Heathrow Land Development in Florida attempted to use their narrow one-class trademark and the UDRP process to acquire heathrow.com.

Australia is another example — auDA requires anyone registering a .com.au second-level domain to have a valid entitlement for that domain — i.e. a registered business name with an Australian Business Number (ABN) issued by the Australian Taxation Office. However, this has failed to protect Australia from such cybersquatting acts. Any Australian citizen over the age of 16 can obtain an ABN (which is free) and use it to register as few or as many domain names as they like but they need to have a "close and substantial" connection to the name or it needs to be an "exact match, abbreviation or acronym" of their name. Check auDA for further details.

Canada — through its own internet regulating body, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) — has taken a similar approach to Australia. Registrations for a .ca country code top-level domain must meet "Canadian Presence" requirements. The list is extensive and includes individual citizens and residents of Canada and in addition, Canadian businesses, Aboriginal Peoples and Indian Bands, Canadian trademark holders (whether Canadian or Foreign), Her Majesty the Queen and, Foreign Businesses with a physical Canadian presence. However, as with Australia, even this has failed to protect Canada from cybersquatting acts.

In an unusual departure from trying to avoid the practice of cybersquatting, the CIRA themselves seem to encourage the practice by publishing — on their website — a very extensive Domains To Be Released List. This list is directly promoted on the site home page. The practice gives the impression of being intentionally designed to promote cybersquatting by allowing Canadian (or other) cybersquatters to literally go shopping for domains to register. Domains that can then be offered back to the previous registrant — or a business or corporation with an affiliated name — at an inflated price. CIRA policy regarding domain disputes does have a clause to protect against this, (section 3.5 Registration in Bad Faith, subsection a) ), however this does require making a complaint, and going through the resolution process.

Internationally, the United Nations copyright agency WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) has, since 1999, provided an arbitration system wherein a trademark holder can attempt to claim a squatted site. In 2006, there were 1823 complaints filed with WIPO, which was a 25% increase over the 2005 rate.[2] In 2007 it was stated that 84% of claims made since 1999 were decided in the complaining party's favor.[2]

Notable cases

With litigation

  • Jethro Tull vs. Denny Hammerton,[3] 2000 (WIPO Case)
  • Madonna vs. Parisi,[4] 2000 (WIPO Case)
  • Primedia Magazine Finance Inc. (Tiger Beat) vs Next Level Productions (Benny Doro).[5]
  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 2001
  • Lamparello v. Falwell, 2005
  • Lufthansa v. Future Media Architects, 2008[6]

 © 2012   CybrSquatteRumors

All Rights Reserved Worldwide