
	Where results make sense

Topic: Domain hijacking

Related Topics

public domain

Top level domain

Domain Name System

Public Domain Resources

Domain biology

domain names

function domain

integral domain

domain theory

eminent domain

Britannica Public Domain

principal ideal domain

In the News (Fri 18 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Domain Name Journal - Domains, Trademarks & The Dispute
		These domain registrants feel the challenger’s actions are unfair and question the means by which the challenger can “take away” their domain name.
		the domain consists of general, generic terms that others commonly use) and was aware of registrant’s lack of bad faith registration and use of the domain name (ie.
		On the other hand, a “cyberpirate” registers domain names which are marks or incorporate marks of a trademark owner with the intent to sell the domain to the owner for a profit, or to use the domain with the intent to trade off of the trademark owner’s associated goodwill.
	www.dnjournal.com /legal/sl_reverse_hijacking.htm (2330 words)

	Domain hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Domain theft is an aggressive form of domain hijacking that usually involves an illegal act.
		In most cases, identity theft is used to trick the domain registrar into allowing the hijacker to change the registration information to steal control of an unexpired domain from the legitimate owner.
		The victims of such theft often do not have the resources or willingness to invest the effort necessary to regain control of their domain, which may require legal action or a lengthy and time-consuming arbitration process, especially if the hijacker and victim are in different countries.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Domain_hijacking (237 words)

	Reverse Domain Hijacking: Extreme Makeover
		Although domain name disputes almost invariably come down to their specific facts, it is no secret that a number of large companies use their financial resources to muscle domain names away from legitimate holders.
		Few domain name holders will have the resources to challenge them in court, and even if they do, the worst that can happen to the trademark holder is that they will spend money litigating, which is not generally much of a deterrent.
		Sometimes, the domain name holder may agree to part with the domain name in settlement to recoup its losses, but this type of forced transaction is merely a symptom of the statutory imbalance, not the cure for it.
	www.dnjournal.com /legal/extreme-makeover.htm (673 words)

	WIPO RFC-3 Response of Ellen Rony
		It is recommended that the domain registration agreement require the applicant to submit to the administrative dispute-resolution procedure in respect of any dispute concerning the domain name.
		Cyberpirates who hijack familiar names to trade on the goodwill developed by others or who hold the name ransom to those most likely to desire such a domain name are clearly using the domain name system in inappropriate ways.
		Legitimate domain name registrants are also incurring significant expenditures to protect and enforce their common law rights to use their names in a global marketplace.
	www.domainhandbook.com /rfc3.html (4655 words)

	Domain Name Hijacking
		Topics relating to domain names are often in the news these days, whether it's another tale of instant riches through the sale of a simple.com domain (the story most quoted: the "business.com" sold for $7.5 million in late 1999) or breathless stories of cybersquatters and trademark disputes.
		When you buy a domain name, your details (name, company name, address, etc.) are recorded in the database along with the domain name, the date that you purchased the name and the date you will be due to pay a "renewal fee" for the domain name.
		Domain names made up of the traditional trade names of such a company have the added benefit of giving customers more ease of recognition, and this is especially important in the virtual village of some 300 million users that comprises the World Wide Web.
	www.domainphil.com /articles/history.htm (5918 words)

	Glimcher University Mall v GNO Inc. - Case No. 98010
		A decision on reverse domain name hijacking is to be made in conjunction with a decision on the merits of a complaint.
		Reverse domain name hijacking is defined in the Rules as using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.
		An allegation in a response of reverse domain name hijacking is nothing more than a suggestion that the panel consider the duty imposed upon the panel by the Rules to be on guard against abuse of the arbitration process.
	www.arbforum.com /domains/decisions/98010.htm (1803 words)

	Domain Name Hijacking
		Some domain registration companies and at least one domain broker ask to be allowed to point your domain name at their site.
		It does not matter if you register with domain registration company X or company Y. As long as they provide the necessary DNS and registration services then the domain name will be exactly the same.
		A large number of domain registrars would be delighted to take your money in exchange for a chance to register domain names under the new proposed top domains -- despite the fact that the implementation of these new top domains has been delayed and is now in some doubt.
	www.domainphil.com /articles/tips.htm (1238 words)

	Demys \| Domain news service \| HM The Queen found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		In a WIPO complaint over the domain name newzealand.com described as 'misconceived' by a three member domain name panel the Queen, as Head of State of the country of New Zealand, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
		This showed that, during the WIPO second domain name process, New Zealand had taken up a formal position with regard to country names which was at odds with the present complaint.
		As for round three, the panel said that even where VCI might have registered the domain name with a view to selling it for a large sum of money, there was no indication that it did so to sell it to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant.
	www.demys.net /news/2002/12/02_dec_20_queen.htm (970 words)

	Reverse domain hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The term reverse domain hijacking refers to the practice of acquiring domain names from owners by accusing them of violating trademarks with the domain name, and demanding that the domain be transferred.
		Cybersquatting refers to the practice of domain hijacking without the legal right, in which a domain name, consisting of a trademark or another well-known name is registered solely with the intent of selling it to the trademark owner later on.
		This attempt was reprimanded as reverse domain hijacking in 2001 by the WIPO [1].
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking (1140 words)

	House Bill 3028 - Domain Hijacking
		`(D)(i) A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority that takes any action described under clause (ii) affecting a domain name shall not be liable for monetary relief to any person for such action, regardless of whether the domain name is finally determined to infringe or dilute the mark.
		`(iii) A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority shall not be liable for damages under this section for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another absent a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such registration or maintenance of the domain name.
		The court may also grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.
	www.domains4sale.com /HouseBill3028.htm (1120 words)

	Domain Hijacking Takes ICANN Spotlight
		Domain-name hijacking occurs when someone fraudulently takes control of a domain name, often by masquerading as the legitimate administrative contact for a domain name.
		Among the causes of cited for hijacks was the failure of registrars to follow procedures for transferring domain names from one registrar to another and insufficient verification of the identity of someone requesting a domain-name change.
		Also contributing to the domain-name hijacking cases outlined in the report was the relationship between official ICANN registrars and their resellers.
	www.eweek.com /article2/0,1759,1836820,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594 (1504 words)

	ICANN \| Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
		Policy means the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that is incorporated by reference and made a part of the Registration Agreement.
		Registrar means the entity with which the Respondent has registered a domain name that is the subject of a complaint.
		Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.
	www.icann.org /udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm (3660 words)

	Domain Name Talk - Domain hijacking founded @ directnic.com
		If you are interested in those domains you will needs to contact their owners.
		If you are interested in those domains you will need to contact their owners at noldc@04desember.com.
		Directnic have no control over the domain name, you have to negotiate with the domain owner, which is not directnic, from what I see directnic never said the 3 domains was frauded though.
	www.domainnametalk.com /showthread.php?t=86 (726 words)

	Recent trademark cases examine reverse domain name hijacking (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		that the domain name owner was not doing anything wrong and that "[a]ny encumbrance attached to this domain name cds.com as a result of [challenger's] actions must be removed immediately," presumably a reference to the challenger's request to NSI to cut off the domain name.
		These three cases demonstrate that the innocent domain name owner who is prepared and able to fund a lawsuit can overcome the initial disadvantage created by NSI's policy by having a regular court consider the challenge on its merits.
		The only way a domain name owner may avert this result is by (1) suing to block the cutoff, (2) agreeing to let the domain name be cut off in 90 days, (3) giving up the domain name to the challenger, or (4) producing a trademark registration matching the domain name.
	www.patents.com /pubs/comment.htm (2163 words)

	Protect Yourself Against Domain Name Theft: Lessons From Panix.com - News by InformationWeek (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Jan 21, 2005 04:47 PM The domain name hijacking of panix.com last week highlights a weaknesses in the Internet's registrar system and should serve as a warning to all companies.
		Perhaps a more practical option to reduce the chances of a hijacking is to make it harder for a hacker to spoof a domain's administrative information and e-mail address.
		If a domain owner makes the administrator contact private, then a registrar getting a domain name transfer request from the listed contact would know that the request is not legitimate.
	www.informationweek.com /story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=57703188 (1231 words)

	MadRiverWeb Domain Hijacking Info
		Where the domain locking would be useful is if the admin contact accidentally approved a domain hijacking.
		In some cases the domain owner is the admin contact, but in many cases one of the internet service providers is. Any time I can, I designate myself as the admin contact email address so that I can protect my clients' domains.
		In a two recent cases where a client paid the Domain Registry of America solicitation, I initiated correspondence to request that their money be refunded and to let them know in advance that the domain transfer would not be approved and was initiated in error.
	www.madriverweb.com /domainhijacking.htm (809 words)

	Reverse Domain Name Hijacking - Domain Masters Radio Show 7: Moniker
		And it’s a scary thing, because one thing I think any domain owner should do is go out and see if their valuable domain names have trademarks that other people have registered, either, perhaps before the domain name owner registered the domain name or after, as with the case with Mess.com.
		Monte: So they went in, registered the domain name, Mess.com, in an effort after the dot-com was already registered in an effort to hold this as a, “Hey, we have the trademark, here’s the issue,” and little did they know that you were going to be the attorney involved in proving this whole debacle.
		The conclusion was that it was actually the worst--the most egregious case of reverse domain hijacking that any of the three panelists had seen.
	www.domainsystems.com /domain-masters/ep-2005-02-09/page-2.jsp (966 words)

	Domain Name / Nom de domaine !: Domain hijacking on the rise?
		Is this a rare case of domain name hijacking, or does it hide a general trend?
		Because Respondent has failed to respond to this dispute, the Panel assumes that Complainant’s assertion that the disputed domain name was hijacked is accurate." This means that the Respondent did not have legitimate rights or interests in the name.
		Les 74.000 noms de domaine en ".eu" bloqués sont...
	domaine.blogspot.com /2006/10/domain-hijacking-on-rise.html (299 words)

	[No title]
		The most common type of hijacking is when someone changes the DNS information so that traffic from your site ends up at the hijacker's site.
		To hijack a domain name electronically, a hacker spoofs (forges) the email of the domain name Administrative Contact, i.e., sends an email to the registrar that appears to have originated from the contact when it actually was sent from another source.
		For domain names that have this LOCK, the person requesting a transfer or modification to the Whois needs to have an account with the registrar that holds the domain (registrar of record) and have administrative privileges to make the change.
	www.domainmart.com /DomainNames/protect/hijacking.htm (358 words)

	Philatelic.Com v Personal - Case No. 112547
		The domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain to a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of out of pocket costs.
		The first determination to be made in a case of this kind is a comparison of the domain name and the name in which Complainant contends that he has rights.
		The Complaint of Gregory K. Deeter DBA Philatelic.com is dismissed and the demand that the domain name, , be transferred is denied.
	www.arbforum.com /domains/decisions/112547.htm (2006 words)

	Possible Domain Poisoning Underway - Security Technology News by TechWeb
		DNS cache poisoning occurs when an attacker hacks into a domain name server, then "poisons" the cache by planting counterfeit data in the cache of the name server.
		When a user requests, say, ebay.com, and the IP address is resolved by the hacked domain server, the bogus data is fed back to the browser.
		Domain cache poisoning and domain hijacking, while rare, are not unheard of.
	www.techweb.com /wire/security/60405913 (776 words)

	ISP suffers apparent domain hijacking \| Tech News on ZDNet
		A Panix.com representative said that ownership of the domain had been moved sometime Friday evening to a company in Australia, that the domain name server (DNS) records had been moved to the United Kingdom, and that the company's mail had been redirected to a company in Canada.
		It is unclear how the domain could have been transferred without the consent of the owner, and the representative expressed frustration with the domain registrars.
		The domain hijack attack happened at the end of August when visitors to the eBay.de site were redirected to a different DNS, meaning that they could not access auctions.
	news.zdnet.com /2100-9588_22-5538227.html (586 words)

	EFF "Cybersquatting and Internet Address & Domain Name Disputes" Archive
		InterNIC (particularly, NSI, the part of InterNIC that handles domain names) is attempting to shift legal responsibility away from itself, by moving to a system in which they deal with domain name disputes as they are resolved in the courts, rather than trying to resolve them internally.
		This case was arguably the first prominent domain name dispute, and opened the entire question of whether or not a domain name is intellectual property, and in what sense.
		Subsequent cases are pushing in the opposite direction, trying to establish domain names as property that benefits the holder (and ergo cannot be taken without cause and recompense).
	www.eff.org /Spam_cybersquatting_abuse/Cybersquatting (1754 words)

	Slashdot:AOL accused of domain name hijacking
		The bottom line of the incident is that the webmaster had the domain first, whether it was a case of cybersquatting or not, and NSI gave it away without her permission.
		A domain name is not a corporation, and owning a domain with the same name as a corporation is not automatically an infringement on their trademark.
		Other domains are registered to the same address and prove irrefutably that the address of record was correct..In fact domain billing mail was received 2 days before NSI claims to have received returned mail.
	slashdot.org /articles/99/06/24/156245_F.shtml (13232 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Thank you -------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________________________________ Domain Name Robbery (aka Domain-Jacking): A Flaw in InterNIC Authentication Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Lucifer Mirza (lucifermirza@hotmail.com) ___________ Disclaimer: ----------- This sole purpose of the information contained in this advisory is to point out the flaws in InterNIC's domain name handling system and is intented for education.
		The first approach is very aggressive and could be hazardous if you are going for gov or mil domain names so I recommend second approach for gov and mil domains.
		After 24 hours you could go and change the domain information and no one would be there to stop you because now you are the admin of the domain name!
	www.hackers-black-book.com /tutorials/domain_hijacking.txt (1550 words)

	PC World - Australian Firm Takes Blame for U.S. Domain Name Hijack
		The hijacking deprived some Panix customers of e-mail access for two days, and shone a light on what some contend are holes in the system for managing Internet domain transfers, according to Ravin and others.
		The hijackers somehow exploited a loophole in the process used to verify requests for domain transfers with the party that owns a Web domain, according to an e-mail message sent to Panix's founder and President Alexis Rosen from Bruce Tonkin, chief technology officer at Melbourne IT.
		Rosen said he didn't know the motivation for the hijacking, but speculated that it may have been retaliation for his company's cooperation in identifying spammers, or an attempt to call attention to problems with the domain transfer system, as ICANN is in the midst of a comment period on domain transfer policies.
	www.pcworld.com /news/article/0,aid,119337,00.asp (969 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)