Re: How Rampant is Cyber & Typo Squatting? Just Ask WIPO After Reviewing Wipo.com!Enrico Schaefer – Jan 07, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
Ah yes, there are many extensions for any domain. But anyone who registers and extension of a brand, company name or domain name with the specific intent to divert traffic is in fact a cybersquatter. The typos noted above are certainly cybersquatters. Their clear intent was to divert direct navigation traffic. The wipo.com domain also appears to be a clear cybersquatter given that the links on that site are 'trademark' links, the exact same area of expertise offered by WIPO. If wipo.com contained links for a new windshield wipe cloth, then they could argue that is a legitimate use. The bad faith intent of the infringer is found in the content (ie links) on the infringing page. The links don't lie....
Their primary address is actually at www.wipo.int, a domain that's harder to cybersquat on since .int is more tightly controlled than most TLDs.
Ah yes, there are many extensions for any domain. But anyone who registers and extension of a brand, company name or domain name with the specific intent to divert traffic is in fact a cybersquatter. The typos noted above are certainly cybersquatters. Their clear intent was to divert direct navigation traffic. The wipo.com domain also appears to be a clear cybersquatter given that the links on that site are 'trademark' links, the exact same area of expertise offered by WIPO. If wipo.com contained links for a new windshield wipe cloth, then they could argue that is a legitimate use. The bad faith intent of the infringer is found in the content (ie links) on the infringing page. The links don't lie....
For a good synopsis of typosquatting, read the McAfee Typosquatting Report here.