Page Not Found

Error: Invalid Request

Comments

Re: How Rampant is Cyber & Typo Squatting? Just Ask WIPO After Reviewing Wipo.com! Daniel R. Tobias  –  Jan 01, 2008 11:13 AM PDT

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.

Reply  |  Link  |  Report Problems
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....

For a good synopsis of typosquatting, read the McAfee Typosquatting Report here.

Reply  |  Link  |  Report Problems

To post comments, please login or create an account.