<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rate of Domain Cybersquatting Hits All Time Low</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:15:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Cybersquatting Cases Fall in 2009 - The Domain Industry's News Source</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-543098</link>
		<dc:creator>Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Cybersquatting Cases Fall in 2009 - The Domain Industry's News Source</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-543098</guid>
		<description>[...] number of total .com domains registered &#8212; fell to about 1 in 22,000 domain names, the lowest ever recorded since the introduction of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color: #FFfbd0">
<p>[...] number of total .com domains registered &#8212; fell to about 1 in 22,000 domain names, the lowest ever recorded since the introduction of [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Douglas</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-512254</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Douglas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-512254</guid>
		<description>All comments are great reading.  D The C&#039;s comment is FUN reading!  ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All comments are great reading.  D The C&#8217;s comment is FUN reading!  <img src='http://domainnamewire.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Morales</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-511099</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Morales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-511099</guid>
		<description>Andrew,

The data you provided is what has been reported to UDRP. To come to the conclusion that cybersquatting is down is a long shot at validating when you look at all the facts IMO. 

Fact 1: 99% of trademark domains and typos are registered already. You can&#039;t register what is not available. 

Fact 2: The majority of trademark giants already own their domains or previously went through the UDRP or WIPO to gain control of their domains.

Fact 3: Only a small percentage of Trademark holders own their TM domains and TM typos. Maybe 2-3%? 

Fact 4: 99% of domain TM typos not owned by TM Holders are owned by cybersquatters cashing in on typein traffic. Their goal is not to sell the domains, but benefit from traffic to earn PPC revenue.

Fact 5: A large percentage of Trademark holders only own their domain. The majority of TM holders (Medium to Small Businesses)could care less about typo domains, or do not understand the value on how typo domains can reenforce and protect their brands.  

Fact 6: This is a result of lower UDRP filings each year by TM holders. Once these TM Owners are educated on how these typos take away value from their brands, UDRP and WIPO cases will sky rocket. Additionally, when the economy rebounds as well.

Fact 7: The amount of cybersquatters is still astronomical when you look at all the TM typos that have not been challenged by the TM Holder.

Fact 8: The cost of filing a WIPO or UDRP against a cybersquatter will always be some sort of deterant from the owners going after TM typos when they already own the domain.

I believe the title should have read UDRP filings down when compared to domain registration growth.

Every once in a while, I do a TM typo by accident and it takes me to a parked page and cybersquatter. Latest example: www.bulkregster.com. I ask myself, how could this company who is in the domain industry allow this cybersquatting to take place? If they are letting it slide and are educated on the subject, you can bet large, medium and small business TM Holders are lost in the sauce.

Only my opinion.

Thanks,
Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew,</p>
<p>The data you provided is what has been reported to UDRP. To come to the conclusion that cybersquatting is down is a long shot at validating when you look at all the facts IMO. </p>
<p>Fact 1: 99% of trademark domains and typos are registered already. You can&#8217;t register what is not available. </p>
<p>Fact 2: The majority of trademark giants already own their domains or previously went through the UDRP or WIPO to gain control of their domains.</p>
<p>Fact 3: Only a small percentage of Trademark holders own their TM domains and TM typos. Maybe 2-3%? </p>
<p>Fact 4: 99% of domain TM typos not owned by TM Holders are owned by cybersquatters cashing in on typein traffic. Their goal is not to sell the domains, but benefit from traffic to earn PPC revenue.</p>
<p>Fact 5: A large percentage of Trademark holders only own their domain. The majority of TM holders (Medium to Small Businesses)could care less about typo domains, or do not understand the value on how typo domains can reenforce and protect their brands.  </p>
<p>Fact 6: This is a result of lower UDRP filings each year by TM holders. Once these TM Owners are educated on how these typos take away value from their brands, UDRP and WIPO cases will sky rocket. Additionally, when the economy rebounds as well.</p>
<p>Fact 7: The amount of cybersquatters is still astronomical when you look at all the TM typos that have not been challenged by the TM Holder.</p>
<p>Fact 8: The cost of filing a WIPO or UDRP against a cybersquatter will always be some sort of deterant from the owners going after TM typos when they already own the domain.</p>
<p>I believe the title should have read UDRP filings down when compared to domain registration growth.</p>
<p>Every once in a while, I do a TM typo by accident and it takes me to a parked page and cybersquatter. Latest example: <a href="http://www.bulkregster.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bulkregster.com</a>. I ask myself, how could this company who is in the domain industry allow this cybersquatting to take place? If they are letting it slide and are educated on the subject, you can bet large, medium and small business TM Holders are lost in the sauce.</p>
<p>Only my opinion.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-510908</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-510908</guid>
		<description>@ Domain Investor - just reread your comment.  The graph takes into consideration both registrations and UDRP filings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Domain Investor &#8211; just reread your comment.  The graph takes into consideration both registrations and UDRP filings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-510853</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-510853</guid>
		<description>Oh okay, agreed the rate is lower year by year because typos have hit the peak.

I misunderstood the article as &quot;cybersquatting is on a decline&quot;. In which case, probably still is a bit, but definitely not possible to determine based on UDRP filings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh okay, agreed the rate is lower year by year because typos have hit the peak.</p>
<p>I misunderstood the article as &#8220;cybersquatting is on a decline&#8221;. In which case, probably still is a bit, but definitely not possible to determine based on UDRP filings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Berryhill</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-510848</link>
		<dc:creator>John Berryhill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-510848</guid>
		<description>&quot;Only a fool can write an article like that and draw conclusions drawn above.&quot;

Nothing like a well-reasoned rebuttal...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Only a fool can write an article like that and draw conclusions drawn above.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nothing like a well-reasoned rebuttal&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/16/rate-of-domain-cybersquatting-hits-all-time-low/comment-page-1/#comment-510846</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=9212#comment-510846</guid>
		<description>Matt - by definition, that would mean a lower rate of cybersquatting.  If a lower % of domains being registered are typos, then the rate has to go lower.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt &#8211; by definition, that would mean a lower rate of cybersquatting.  If a lower % of domains being registered are typos, then the rate has to go lower.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

