goes after a big typosquatter

Company behind government-mandated free annual credit report site demands control of 227 typos.

Central Source, a company created by the three major U.S. consumer credit bureaus, has filed an in rem lawsuit against 227 typos of its domain name.

This is the sixth cybersquatting lawsuit the company has filed this year to crack down on people typosquatting its domain name.

A test of the domain names shows that most use Moniker forwarding to land on a parked page at That domain has a disclaimer on it saying it’s not affiliated with the US-government mandated site that provides a free annual credit report: Click here to continue reading…

UDRPsearch owner sues after being threatened with UDRP

Virtual Point sues after person threatens UDRP if it doesn’t sell a domain for $1,000.

The owner of UDRP database site has filed a federal lawsuit (pdf) after being threatened with a UDRP.

Virtual Point Inc filed the lawsuit after an individual tried to buy the domain name and allegedly threatened to file a UDRP if Virtual Point did not agree to a low price.

According to the filing, Joseph Rosenzweig contacted the plaintiff about acquiring the domain name. Rosenzweig offered $500 for the domain. Virtual Point countered with an $8,000 ask. Rosenzweig then responded with a $1,000 offer and “informed Plaintiff that his principal had “quite a bit of evidence” that the Domain Name was being squatted-on” by Plaintiff and that his principal wanted to “avoid going the UDRP route, which would cost about
$1,000 anyway.”

Virtual Point filed the lawsuit to head off a UDRP. It’s asking for more than just the usual Declaratory Judgment. It’s also claiming wire fraud (because the defendant allegedly made false statements over email to force the plaintiff to sell the domain), fraudulent representation and unfair competition.

The suit names Rosenzweig and doe defendants. Virtual Point is represented by Mike Rodenbaugh.

Cybersquatting lawsuit filed against typos

Company goes after ten 37 typos of popular website.

A company created by the three major U.S. consumer credit bureaus has filed an in rem lawsuit against 10 typo domain names. [Update: The company actually filed four separate lawsuits against a total of 37 domain names.]

Central Source LLC was formed to operate the website after the U.S. government passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in 2003. The law mandated that consumers get free access to credit reports once per year.

The site has received a half billion visits in its first nine years of operation thanks to mandatory notices on other credit sites and lots of promotion by the Federal Trade Commission. This has naturally made the site a target for typosquatters.

In fact, Central Source owns 250 types of

The lawsuit (pdf) filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia (Verisign’s home turf) is against ten typos:,,,,,,,, and

Central Source argues that these are probably owned by the same entity since all are registered at, Pty. Ltd., all use privacy, and all lead to pay-per-click pages or forward to third party websites offering services similar to

Richard Branson turns to new tools to combat cybersquatting

Billionaire fights back after finding his name cybersquatted in new domain names.

Richard BransonBillionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson has turned to two new tools to combat cybersquatting in new top level domain names: The new Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy and Donuts’ “Domain Protected Marks List”.

Branson filed a URS case with the National Arbitration Forum in an effort to get the registrations for and suspended.

After noticing the domain names were registered, he also subscribed to registry Donuts’ Domain Protected Marks List service. By using this service, he has effectively blocked the registration of RichardBranson.TLD for any of Donuts’ other domain names.

The retail price for the blocking service is about $3,000 for five years.

His companies have also filed complaints against and


BidPal cybersquatting lawsuit is either misleading or poorly researched. You decide.

Lawsuit falsely presumes domain owner is offering to sell the domains. And that’s just part of the problem.

In December I wrote about a UDRP for filed by BidPal, Inc.

I noted that the UDRP decision against the complainant was probably correct, but that BidPal’s lawyer screwed up the research as well.

BidPal, Inc. has now filed a federal lawsuit(pdf) to get the domain name as well as “BidPal” in several other extensions. It also found itself a new lawyer who seems equally confused about domain names. That or he’s trying to mislead the court.

The lawyer, Overhauser Law Offices, holds his hat out as an IP lawyer with experience in domain name disputes. The only UDRP I could find that he did was a loss on behalf of DISH Network win on behalf of the respondent in a case filed by DISH Network.

OK, let’s back up. BidPal Inc. uses the domain name It admits that the reason it does this is because was already registered when it went to register the domain:

Because of Registrant Defendants’ cybersquatting behavior with respect to the Infringing Domain Names, BidPal has been forced to use another domain name. The name BidPal chose as the best alternative available was the far-inferior domain name “”.

Got it. So was registered already, the company had to use a “fair-inferior” domain name, but it really wants the better domain name that was already taken. That’s part of the reason BidPal lost its UDRP. The three person panel found it wasn’t registered in bad faith as it was registered well before the company even came into existence.

So Overhauser and BidPal turn to the argument that the domain names were renewed in bad faith. I don’t like that argument, but ultimately the company has to make a stretch somewhere to make its case work.

The lawsuit also appears to be both in rem against the domains and against the domain registrant. The company says it hasn’t been able to get in touch with the domain owner, despite the owner responding to original UDRP. (Oh, and this case doesn’t mention anything about the loss in the UDRP, which I always find disingenuous.)

I question if filing in rem in Indiana against domains powered by multiple registries is going to work. Usually you have to file in the registry’s jurisdiction. If you want to get sneaky, go for an in rem in Verisign’s backyard for the .com, then work on the others.

Yet all of this is trivial to the big gotcha in the case, where either BidPal and its lawyer are trying to fool someone or it just didn’t do its research. I’m willing to assume the latter.

Here’s what the lawsuit tries to show bad faith by the registrant trying to sell the domain name:

The website redirects to a “parked” page (a free services offered by GoDaddy to websites which are not actively offering bona fide products, services and/or information). On that page, a visitor is invited to “Learn how you can get this domain [name].” Upon clicking on that link, the visitor is directed to an offer to engage a domain-buying service to acquire the name. An example of such an offer to sell an Infringing Domain Name, presumably made by either Peterre and/or InterMediaOne and/or InterMediaOne-AGB, is shown on the website at’s parked-for-sale page…

This “presumption” is wrong and the lawyer could have figured that out by doing a few minutes of research. GoDaddy places this link on a lot of the parked pages to promote its Domain Buy service. It has nothing to do with the domain owner. The product description itself states that they’ll just try to contact the domain owner to see if they’re willing to sell the domain.

Misleading or just poorly researched, I think this lawsuit stinks.

[Update: the parties settled and the plaintiff now has the domains.]