One could argue that the corporations are just “trying whatever regardless of rights, because they might win some of it” and guess what, that’s what domainers are doing.

I think the law about confusingly similar is ok, but the cost of arguing is too high and the cost of domains is too low. Should CocaCola spent $7 for cocacola.com and stop registering domains, assuming every other variant that might be confusingly similar will be defacto left unregistered by the fair marketplace? Or should they proactively establish their trademark by registering variants? Oh, and if cybersquatters face a $100k fine, what sort of fine should Pirelli face for going after zero.org and zero.us as part of their PZero brand protection?

I definitely understand your position on this. I think that the article was more focused on “branded” domain names, as opposed to generic names. If I have a company, and I roll out a product called the “iphone”, then yes I believe that I should have the right to any traffic that is generated based on that name or common mutations of that name. Especially if that name has been trademarked by me. But, for something like “cruise.com”; it’s a generic word that can be found in the dictionary, and in my opinion I have just as much a right to own that name, and any of its typos, as the next man. I think this is where the line gets blurry for Mcafee. If they place just as much bias on generic “dictionary” phrases as they do with trademarked brand names, then they are, as you mention, seriously handicapping the web user experience.

It’s a balancing act that needs to be approached with detail, otherwise there will definitely be some collateral damage. I think a good solution to this problem would be education. We should educate trademark/business owners on the value of purchasing their own domain name misspellings. If they understood how much money they’re leaving on the table, they would think twice about ignoring typos. We’ve moved ahead on this front, but not as fast as we should be.

The term Typosquater is so often misused and applied unjustly epecially by covetous
parties who try to “steal” domains through the legal process.

Example: Pirelli Tire with their Pzero trademark tried to steal the zero.org and zero.us domains from their respective owners.

Pirelli claimed in it’s arbitration filings that zero is “identical or confusingly similar” to its Pzero TM.

They succeeded in the zero.org case but failed in the zero.us case.

See:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/938092.htm (zero.org)

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/938180.htm (zero.us)

I believe your example of using Cruise.com is an example of this misapplication..

Cruise is 100% generic and if used in it’s descriptive sense -for cruise travel-
is not legally protected unless combined with some other element.

If I registered PrincessCriuses.com which is obviously a typo of
PrincessCruises.com ,I would be a Typosquater.

If I registered Motgages.com -a typo of the 100% generic word Mortgages - how
would that make me a Typosquater?

CitibankMotgages.com? Yes!

Motgages.com? No!

If Citibank registered the typo domain CitibankMotgages.com, would that make THEM
a Typosquater?

No, because there is no intent to deceive.

IMHO, registering a typo of a generic word like Cruise is no different than registering the correct spelling in another extension.

Criuse.com
Cruise.net
Cruise.info

You are not intending to deceive or violating anyone’s rights.

Of course, you could become the victim of Trademark overreach.

By the way, I purposefully misspelled Typosquater throughout because
I wanted to. :-)

Enjoyed your article.

Patrick