Jump to content

Typosquatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.170.86.33 (talk) at 14:41, 18 February 2010 (→‎Further reading: rm 2nd group; they're advocacy org. not neutral, not relevant. why do they get exposure?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, is a form of cybersquatting which relies on mistakes such as typographical errors made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. Should a user accidentally enter an incorrect website address, they may be led to an alternative website owned by a cybersquatter.[1]

Overview

The typosquatter's URL will usually be one of four kinds, all similar to the victim site address:

(In the following, the intended website is "example.com")

  • A common misspelling, or foreign language spelling, of the intended site: exemple.com
  • A misspelling based on typing errors: xample.com or examlpe.com
  • A differently phrased domain name: examples.com
  • A different top-level domain: example.org

Once in the typosquatter's site, the user may also be tricked into thinking that they are in fact in the real site; through the use of copied or similar logos, website layouts or content.

Typosquatting in United States law

In the United States, the 1999 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) contains a clause (Section 3(a), amending 15 USC 1117 to include sub-section (d)(2)(B)(ii)) aimed at combatting typosquatting.[2][3]

However, on April 17, 2006, controversial evangelist Jerry Falwell failed to get the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision allowing Christopher Lamparello to use "www.fallwell.com". Relying on a plausible misspelling of Falwell's name, Lamparello's gripe site presents misdirected visitors with scriptural references that counter the fundamentalist preacher's scathing rebukes against homosexuality. The high court let stand a 2005 Fourth Circuit finding that "the use of a mark in a domain name for a gripe site criticizing the markholder does not constitute cybersquatting."

Militating in favor of Mr. Lamparello's case was the fact that his website did not mimic Falwell's site stylistically so as to confuse site visitors into believing that Falwell endorsed Lamparello's site content.

Further, the fact that Lamparello's site is noncommercial preempts a claim of unfair business practices. Whereas, a communicative forum for comment and criticism constitutes a "bona fide non-commercial or fair use" of a trademark interest, under the ACPA.

On his site, Lamparello provided a link to an Amazon.com webpage selling a book he favored. The court determined this did not diminish the communicative function of his website, saying use of a domain name to engage in criticism or commentary "even where done for profit" does not alone show a bad faith intent to profit (Lamparello did not stand to gain financially from sales of the book at Amazon.com).

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Microsoft Strider project with screenshots of typosquatted domains.
  2. ^ "Anti-CyberSquatting Protection Act." US Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255.IS:=, accessed 24th October 2008.
  3. ^ "Without typosquatters, how far would Google fall?" Cade Metz, The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/23/google_and_typosquatting/, accessed 24th October 2008.