Cybersquatters besieged business from all sides
The new MarkMonitor report claims that the 25 largest brands from the 2006 Top 100 Interbrand list last year were victims of 275,000 cybersquatting acts . This startling figure was reprinted by many large media outlets that do not quite understand the issue ( BusinessWeek , Computerworld and PC Magazine ).
The subjectivity of this report is quite obvious, because MarkMonitor earns money by providing the “cybersquatting protection” service to large corporations. They keep track of all domains that more or less fit under the name of any of the brands or brands, and try to quickly inform the client about dangerous precedents. Daily MarkMonitor scanner checks 134 million domain names. Naturally, the corresponding PR is very profitable for the company, and the above report is probably part of their PR, especially since the research methodology raises very serious doubts (the calculation was done by content analysis of ISP traffic).
If we divide 275,000 cases into 25 companies, it turns out that each of them suffered an average of 11,000 acts of cybersquatting. This is an unrealistically large number.
It is known that Microsoft (this is one of the 25 largest brands in question) has over the past few months repulsed about 1000 sites from cybersquatters, and currently has four trials in the US and five in the UK.
')
The question is, where are the remaining 10,000 acts of cybersquatting? The answer is: nowhere. They are not. The WIPO International Organization, which deals with cases against cybersquatters, reports an increase in the number of conflicts by 25%. For the entire past year, WIPO lawyers have already dealt with ... 1,823 cases. This is six times less than the number of sites that only one Microsoft has sorted out.
What does all this mean for the domainers? We see mainstream media becoming interested in the issue. Obviously, the problem of cybersquatting excites and fascinates the inhabitants. Companies like MarkMonitor try to use this phenomenon for their own PR. What will the increased public attention lead to? How will this affect the business of the domainers? Shows time.
via Daily Domainer
The subjectivity of this report is quite obvious, because MarkMonitor earns money by providing the “cybersquatting protection” service to large corporations. They keep track of all domains that more or less fit under the name of any of the brands or brands, and try to quickly inform the client about dangerous precedents. Daily MarkMonitor scanner checks 134 million domain names. Naturally, the corresponding PR is very profitable for the company, and the above report is probably part of their PR, especially since the research methodology raises very serious doubts (the calculation was done by content analysis of ISP traffic).
If we divide 275,000 cases into 25 companies, it turns out that each of them suffered an average of 11,000 acts of cybersquatting. This is an unrealistically large number.
It is known that Microsoft (this is one of the 25 largest brands in question) has over the past few months repulsed about 1000 sites from cybersquatters, and currently has four trials in the US and five in the UK.
')
The question is, where are the remaining 10,000 acts of cybersquatting? The answer is: nowhere. They are not. The WIPO International Organization, which deals with cases against cybersquatters, reports an increase in the number of conflicts by 25%. For the entire past year, WIPO lawyers have already dealt with ... 1,823 cases. This is six times less than the number of sites that only one Microsoft has sorted out.
What does all this mean for the domainers? We see mainstream media becoming interested in the issue. Obviously, the problem of cybersquatting excites and fascinates the inhabitants. Companies like MarkMonitor try to use this phenomenon for their own PR. What will the increased public attention lead to? How will this affect the business of the domainers? Shows time.
via Daily Domainer
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/7913/
All Articles