Cybersquatting in new zones will not be a problem
Experts believe that in the domain zones launched under the New gTLD program, cybersquatting will not be a big problem. They explain this by saying that the goal of the domain invaders is to make a profit, but they are unlikely to make much money on new zones.
With cybersquatting is connected, perhaps, most of all fears of the massive launch of new domain zones. CEOs and brand owners are afraid that they will be forced to reserve dozens and hundreds of domain names, spending a lot of money on it. But we do not think that the problem of cybersquatting will be so serious that we will have to resort to such measures.
It is easy to explain: cybersquatters want to make money by selling domains to right holders at a high price or monetizing the traffic associated with their trademark. This works in the .com zone and in some popular national zones, but in less popular domains, for example, in the .biz zone, cybercovotters are already much less active.
')
Here are two main reasons why cybersquatting will not be a mass phenomenon in new gTLDs:
1) Low type-in ​​traffic. Practically no one will enter a domain name like gap.clothing into the browser line, assuming that they will get to the site this way. Exceptions will be made only by some of the most successful specialized domains, but it will be possible to stop cybersquatters in them by sending a complaint to WIPO according to the UDRP procedure.
2) Mass registration of domains in new zones will cost a considerable amount. With most registrars of new gTLDs, the domain costs about $ 30, while cybersquatters leave millions of domains registered for only $ 8 - even very cheap domains do not always pay for themselves. For the same reason, companies will not register hundreds of domains in new gTLDs.
There is a category of cybersquatters who hope to sell their domains directly to their owners. But they can simply ignore them, not to mention the fact that there are simple and inexpensive countermeasures to fraudsters. First, there is the Trademark Clearinghouse service, which many times will make it easier for right holders to track and block suspicious domains and by itself will “scare away” a significant part of scammers. Second, some registrars offer their own brand protection services. For example, the largest registrar of new gTLD Donuts offers a brand domain reservation service in all its 200-300 zones for $ 3000 for a period of five years.
Cybersquatters can also use their sites for phishing and similar types of fraud, but that’s another topic: research shows that phishing has little to do with capturing second-level brand domains. The domain name for phishers is not the main thing, they prefer to place their sites on cheap second-level domains or in subdomains. They rely mainly on the negligence of users who may not pay attention to the domain name that is “hidden” under the hyperlink.
So the problem of cybersquatting in new zones, in our opinion, is exaggerated.
Moreover, some new zone administrators who intended to make a profit at the expense of brand owners who will buy their domains in order to protect against cybersquatting have already become disillusioned with their idea and are now changing their strategy.
With cybersquatting is connected, perhaps, most of all fears of the massive launch of new domain zones. CEOs and brand owners are afraid that they will be forced to reserve dozens and hundreds of domain names, spending a lot of money on it. But we do not think that the problem of cybersquatting will be so serious that we will have to resort to such measures.
It is easy to explain: cybersquatters want to make money by selling domains to right holders at a high price or monetizing the traffic associated with their trademark. This works in the .com zone and in some popular national zones, but in less popular domains, for example, in the .biz zone, cybercovotters are already much less active.
')
Here are two main reasons why cybersquatting will not be a mass phenomenon in new gTLDs:
1) Low type-in ​​traffic. Practically no one will enter a domain name like gap.clothing into the browser line, assuming that they will get to the site this way. Exceptions will be made only by some of the most successful specialized domains, but it will be possible to stop cybersquatters in them by sending a complaint to WIPO according to the UDRP procedure.
2) Mass registration of domains in new zones will cost a considerable amount. With most registrars of new gTLDs, the domain costs about $ 30, while cybersquatters leave millions of domains registered for only $ 8 - even very cheap domains do not always pay for themselves. For the same reason, companies will not register hundreds of domains in new gTLDs.
There is a category of cybersquatters who hope to sell their domains directly to their owners. But they can simply ignore them, not to mention the fact that there are simple and inexpensive countermeasures to fraudsters. First, there is the Trademark Clearinghouse service, which many times will make it easier for right holders to track and block suspicious domains and by itself will “scare away” a significant part of scammers. Second, some registrars offer their own brand protection services. For example, the largest registrar of new gTLD Donuts offers a brand domain reservation service in all its 200-300 zones for $ 3000 for a period of five years.
Cybersquatters can also use their sites for phishing and similar types of fraud, but that’s another topic: research shows that phishing has little to do with capturing second-level brand domains. The domain name for phishers is not the main thing, they prefer to place their sites on cheap second-level domains or in subdomains. They rely mainly on the negligence of users who may not pay attention to the domain name that is “hidden” under the hyperlink.
So the problem of cybersquatting in new zones, in our opinion, is exaggerated.
Moreover, some new zone administrators who intended to make a profit at the expense of brand owners who will buy their domains in order to protect against cybersquatting have already become disillusioned with their idea and are now changing their strategy.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/211214/
All Articles