Thanx for the pdf file of the court documents – it’s funny on another plane when you reach page 19 and see the start of the list, which goes on pages!

Go Verizon!

The judges comment:

“Nothing presented by Navigation Catalyst Systems suggests that Verizon has engaged in any illicit or prohibited behavior.”

Registering a domain or not is not a legal technicality if thats the basis for typosquatting argument which is covered by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

You are arguing that grand theft auto might occur without a car in the equation.

And sure. We agree. It’s what they are doing. However, what you’ve failed to explain is where the law is being broken. Verizon HAS explained where the law is being broken and where they are entitled to damages and why.

Your argument has also already been thrown out of court previously.

You don’t like what Verizon is doing. I understand these points which might be viewed as being hypocritical. However, I don’t like broccoli. The world is imperfect. Until I can prove broccoli is breaking the law or until I can find a legitimate cause for action and sue broccoli for damages, I have to live with the fact that this nasty green weed is everywhere and sometimes makes its way into my food or onto my plate.

Whether or not they actually registered the domain or not is merely a legal technicality. It’s what they’re doing.

Given that just about every generic domain name that receives traffic is registered, that means that most of what Verizon monetizes is a trademark typo.

I think it can be safely argued that Verizon is protecting its marks. When someone types in a URL in their browser incorrectly and ends up on a page that first, presents a link to the correct URL (a reasonable guess presented for the benefit and convenience of the user) and then displays ads and a search form, that cannot be argued to be an act of infringement. That would be the exact same as saying “Bob and Helen started to drive to Mcdonalds, they really wanted a Big Mac. They took a wrong turn and ended up at a destination that first showed them how to get to McDonalds and then offered them other restaurant choices for their convenience”. There is no intent to deceive Bob or Helen. There is no intent to deveive Bob or Helen causing them to believe they are at McDonalds when they aren’t. There is no intent to use, or actual use of the McDonalds trademark to deceive Bob or Helen. There is no intent to use or actually use the McDonalds trademark to deceive Bob or Helen and benefit unfairly. No offerings were wrongly presented as, or made confusingly similar to those of McDonalds with intent to cause such confusion and so on and so on.

I was drawn to this argument and the constant ranting about typosquatting. I am not the expert of course. You are the expert. You report domain news. But I started to wonder… can there be an act of typosquatting without a domain first being registered or otherwise to be in possession of the offender? My understanding is that typosquatting and cybersquatting deal with domains registered in bad faith. If there cannot be typosquatting… then could your remarks be considered to be defamatory, libelous or actionable by Verizon? You are and have been, by your own admission, accusing them of breaking the law.

Another point you seem to be unaware of. Your argument for “typosquatting” (agreeing to disagree on the definitions and relying on your usage of the term) was previously rejected in court – Verizon California, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems

So again, I would assert that this both an extraneous and failed argument with no bearing on the facts of the complaint.

People may not like it but it could be argued that any domainer that parks domains is benefiting in the exact same way. People end up at a domain through a variety of means (bought traffic, typin, old orphaned links to the site etc) with expectations of finding information, products or services and get shown advertisements, with the domain owner knowing and understanding that showing those ads is more profitable than showing them the actual content.