Cybersquatters sometimes redirect domain names to a variety of different websites in an effort to see what type of activity will net them the most profit at the expense of trademark owners, as a recent decision demonstrates. I explain the case in a new YouTube video.
The decision resulted from a decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in a case filed by Dominion Energy, a Fortune 500 company that was established in 1909 and serves nearly seven million customers in the United States. Dominion Energy uses the domain name <dominionenergy.com> for itself, but the cybersquatter registered the almost-identical domain name <dominionenergy.com> for itself.
In my video, I show how the cybersquatter redirected the domain name at times to a website that tricks Internet users into believing that they have encountered a security issue and encourages them to contact a fake Windows support phone number; at other times to a department store website; and at other times to the actual website for Dominion Energy.
Fortunately for trademark owners, this type of activity typically qualifies as “bad faith” under the UDRP, even when the disputed domain name redirects to a legitimate website — which, I believe, often occurs when other companies play no active role in the process but offer affiliate programs that reward third parties, such as cybersquatters, for directing web traffic in their direction. And although participation in these affiliate programs may explicitly forbid this type of activity, plenty of cybersquatters are happy to ignore the rules and profit for as long as they are able to get away with it.
As the panel wrote in the Dominion Energy case:
The disputed domain name continually redirecting to different websites… suggests that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an unlawful purpose such as phishing for personal information. Complainant submits that this is further evidenced because Complainant has contacted one of the companies (Michael Kors) to whose website the disputed domain name has recently resolved, and was informed that there is no affiliation between the disputed domain name and that organization.
For more details, watch the video.
