Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is the action and effect of registering a domain name, even knowing that another has a better title to it, with the purpose of extorting it to buy it or simply to divert traffic web to a competitor site or any other site.

The fight against cybersquatting led ICANN to enact its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (also known by its acronym in English UDRP) in 1999, to promote the resolution of disputes by arbitration mechanisms with the intervention of accredited entities, among which the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) stands out.

The term has been abused, to the point of being used to suppress domain names that are critical or satirical of corporations or government entities, or to appropriate domain names legitimately obtained by their holders for the benefit of powerful corporations. The UDRP has been criticized by many specialists for being a transnational private forum that ignores the sovereign judicial systems of the countries where the disputes take place and for the imbalance that manifests itself between domain name holders with limited resources and large corporations. who generally end up getting the sites registered by the former, sometimes on extremely flimsy grounds, just because they can easily afford the costs of the process. Prototypical of these abuses is the case of Mike Rowe, a Canadian programmer who owns the domain mikerowesoft.com, who was sued by the Microsoft corporation alleging homophony. The case did not go to arbitration: given the evident disparity of forces to litigate, Rowe ended up ceding his right to Microsoft in exchange for a small compensation.

Cyberokupa

A cyberokupa is a person who is dedicated to buying and claiming the rights to certain relevant Internet domains or sought after by large companies, emerging celebrities or others, in order to resell them to interested parties. an exorbitant price. It is one of the frauds that are done in the domain registration process.

Sometimes they occupy these domains with web pages of inappropriate content, as a measure of pressure in such resale or for other purposes (political, ideological or of another nature).

Etymologically, it comes from the prefix ciber, taken from cybernetics and used to characterize phenomena related to cutting-edge technology, especially the Internet, and from okupa, since it is It deals with people who occupy an empty property, although the ends pursued by one and the other are very different.

Wrong domains

Through Typosquatting, many cybersquatters also register variants of a domain name with typographical errors so that when the Internet user makes a mistake when entering a domain, they are redirected to a page with advertisements, competing products, content illegal, etc. An example of these erroneous domains can be:

• wikpedia.org
• wkipedia.org
• wikipdia.org

Domain Parking

Cybersquatters often redirect traffic from their domains to domain parking pages: pages with sponsored links that earn them advertising revenue.

Famous cases

In 1994 Gary Kremen created the domain sex.com; In reality, it did not obtain a commercial use, since at that time it was common for anyone to acquire a domain, although they were rarely used.

The following year, Stephen Michael Cohen tried to acquire the same domain, but upon discovering that it was already assigned, he sent Network Solutions (who had awarded the domain to Kremen) a forged letter, explaining that Kremen had been fired. from the computer company where he worked, so he had relinquished ownership of the site. To date, Cohen has billed $100 million from advertising on the site.

• The america.com domain was auctioned by Internet Media Consultants (IMC) GreatDomains.com website; its buyer was America Online.

• The pizza.com domain was sold to Pizza Hut in February 2008 for an unspecified amount.

Case Law

Spain

Regarding cybersquatting, the Spanish Supreme Court issued the first ruling on this practice linking it to the crime of misappropriation (STS 358/2022, of April 7). An unprecedented event that established the legal framework of this computer crime in Spanish jurisprudence.

The case revolves around four members of the religious association Alfa Educación para una Salud Integral. They created a web page (the internet domain of which was www.alfatelevision.org) and opened a bank and PayPal account for donations to be made to the association.

Some time later, certain disagreements arose between the members of the association and the four defendants opened a new web page, changed the Internet domain and modified the password of the accounts, with which they redirected all donations from followers. Later, the Board dismissed the four members

The general secretary of the association denounced the four members for misappropriation and they were sentenced by the Provincial Court of Guadalajara, understanding that the Internet domain was an asset of the association.

This resolution was appealed before the Supreme Court through an appeal, which was upheld by the Chamber. Finally, the high court acquitted the four defendants, understanding that the proven facts do not fit into the crime of misappropriation. In this sense, it highlights that there are elements that were not present in this case and that the actions carried out by these individuals (creation of another domain, change of passwords...) occurred prior to their dismissal and, therefore, were in willingness to do it.

Likewise, the ruling reflects cases in which cybersquatting could present criminal relevance. First, if the conduct seeks to harm the rights of a brand, it could constitute a crime against industrial or intellectual property. Secondly, if the intention were to use the domain name in a deceptive way to cause an error in the transfer of assets, we could be facing a crime of fraud. Finally, if cybersquatting were used to attack a domain name, we would be facing a crime of computer sabotage.