Cybersquatting (part 4; final)

The court found that Doughney sought to profit from the registration of PETA’s mark as a domain name since he made statements in his website advising PETA to just make him an offer for the release of their name. The court further found that he had acted in bad faith and even noted that this was not the first time that he had registered the names of other organizations or people as domain names. As stated by the court, “Doughney knowingly provided false information to NSI upon registering the domain name, knew he was registering a domain name identical to PETA’s mark, and clearly intended to confuse Internet users into accessing his website, instead of PETA’s official website.”

This case and that of my brother, illustrates that cybersquatting is indeed present in society. While it may only be of recent vintage, it is clearly a threat to protected rights of persons. Not only does this occurrence cause harm in the field of intellectual property, but may cause damage on a more personal level, such as one’s reputation. Clearly, cybersquatting is a problem, which may not be as urgent as other problems in society, but is definitely one that must be addressed.