[...] Cybersquatting Cases Fall in 2009 [...]

[...] cost). Regardless, it was reported (hooray) that claims were down overall 9% in 2009 according to Domain Name wire.   Leave a [...]

http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2010/article_0007.html

Yes, you will see the annual press release from WIPO. But instead of focusing on the number of cases, suddenly they’ll use the “number of domains involved” as the metric

But merely filing a court case will not result in transfer of a domain name in a default situation. The case will have to be served on the defendant. If done by email, one has to move for alternative service and obtain the court’s consent. Then one has to move for a default judgment, and provide briefing sufficient to prove up a prima facie case. The court may require a hearing on that motion.

Pursuing a default in an ACPA case *may* turn out with a lower total price tag than a UDRP, but it is not a sure bet.

As far as “effectiveness” of remedies goes, enforcing a monetary judgment against fake whois data or persons in other countries is doable in some circumstances, but also requires a healthy outlay of costs and fees to do it, and requires a client willing to go along for the ride.

Among the most enthusiastic litigators is Verizon, and as a casual look at how effective a deterrent the litigation has been, I just punched up a few obvious typos at random:

Verizoon.com – putative WHOIS in Pakistan

Vrizon.com – putative WHOIS in Moscow

Veerizon.com – … Korea

Veriizon.com – Domains By Proxy

Verisign.com – some dodgy outfit in California

I guess I’m just not seeing the deterrent. But to a certain paranoid way of thinking it probably seems that cybersquatters have some sort of “hive mind” and would even be aware of the lawsuits, or the UDRP’s for that matter. My guess would be that the notion of cybersquatting is more likely re-invented by malefactors, or simply ill-informed individuals, every day, all over the world. Some street hustler in Lagos who finds the internet and graduates to cybersquatting from 419 scamming, is unlikely to be impressed with goings on in US courts, WIPO, or anywhere else.

I’m still surprised by some of the calls I get from people who don’t “get it”, so from what I’ve seen, there’s an endless supply of people who will step up to the plate, regardless of whether others have been deterred.

But I wonder if we’ll see the annual press release from WIPO this year?