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.
Overview
Generally, the victim site of typosquatting will be a frequently visited website. 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. Sometimes competitors of the victim site will do this.
Alternatively, the user will be forwarded to a site of a completely different nature from what they intended. This tactic was infamously used by John Zuccarini, who redirected domains targeting children to pornographic websites. Sometimes, the typosquatters will use the false addresses to distribute viruses, adware, spyware or other malware. Some are also shock sites. More common are benign domain parking sites, selling advertising to firms based on keywords similar to the misspelled word in the domain.
As with cybersquatting in the past, the term typosquatting has been used by covetous parties in an effort to unseat domain registrants from brandable variants of generic domain names. The shortage of poignant and generic domain names in the coveted .com generic top-level domain has left many hopeful registrants with no alternative but to locate catchy variants of existing generic words e.g. Orbitz.com (popular travel site with "z" to replace the "s") in an effort to find "new land" on which to build their website. As in the preceding example, the line between typosquatting and registering a brandable variant of a generic domain name blurs dependent upon the circumstance of each situation.
Combatting typosquatting
A victim website will usually send a cease and desist letter to the offender at first, in an attempt to quell the activity.It may also try to purchase the website address from the typosquatter, which could have been the typosquatter's aim all along.
Occasionally, lawsuits will be taken against the offending site or individual.
A company may try to preempt typosquatting by obtaining a number of websites with common misspellings and redirect them to the main, correctly spelled website. For example www.gooogle.com, www.goolge.com, www.gogle.com, www.gewgle.com, and others, all redirect to www.google.com.
Microsoft has released new software to help combat this issue. The software is called "Strider Typo-Patrol". This is a tool that scans and shows third-party domains that are allegedly typosquatting. It also lets parents restrict access to typo-squatting domains that show sexually oriented ads on typos of children's web sites. Caution should be exercised as to how results from this tool are interpreted. It highlights misspelt sites that use cookies and employ HTTP re-directions. Both of these are commonly used mechanisms for providing Web Services and don't necessarily mean a site is hosted by a domain squatter.
Defensive registrations
Many site operators have resorted to registration of long lists of seemingly-duplicate names across multiple countries and top-level domains; for instance, amazon.com is duplicated across most country code TLD's and a local version of Google exists in nearly every available inhabited region, including a nominally-localised google.pn for the Pitcairn Islands, population 56. Google's domain name is also registered (but inactive) in uninhabited Internet regions such as the French Antarctic territories.A growing trend to abusive use of defensive registration, where the "derogatories" are targeted, is common. These are names such as Non-criminal law is primarily concerned with unfair competition between people who register domain names that are typographically similar to known trademarks. This is the "hook" for trademark infringement: not simply using the same or a similar name, but using the same or a similar name for the purpose of competition with the trademark owner. In other words, it may be perfectly acceptable to use a domain name that is confusingly similar to an existing trademark IF the web page standing behind the new domain name is not used to compete with the trademark owner, OR if the web page standing behind the new domain name is used to help consumers to locate the product identified in the trademark.
Mitigating in favor of Mr. Lamparello's case was 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, that Lamparello's site is non-commercial 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 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (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). This case demonstrated the importance of balancing the property interests of trademark owners with the interests of Internet users who seek to make lawful uses of others' marks, “including for purposes such as comparative advertising, comment, criticism, parody, news reporting, fair use, etc." When the alleged infringer establishes a gripe site that criticizes the markholder, the markholder must show a “bad-faith attempt” on the part of the infringer to profit from the misuse.
Typosquatting and the law
"Typosquatting" is a meaningless term where the law is concerned. Laws generally are not concerned about registrations of domain names that are similar to other domain names or similar to existing trademarks, unless some other important factor is involved.Free speech, not unfair competition
On April 17, 2006, controversial evangelical Jerry Falwell failed to get the 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."Examples of typosquatting
"Catchall" typosquatting
In addition to purchases of individual domain name, several attempts have been made by larger corporations to profit from users' typos by redirecting them without their knowledge.See also
Notes
Further reading
External links
External Links about ISP Subdomain Redirection - Security and Legal Concerns
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Thursday October 09, 2008 at 10:56:48 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Copyright © 2009, Dictionary.com, LLC. All rights reserved.