typosquatting

[renamecor]

Out of curiosity I have been looking at this subject with respect to affiliate marketing and my understanding is ;

Typosquatting = using a url similar to another, to take traffic away from them. The typo url is then monetised (or other) and the correct url never gets any dosh.

Is it still classed as cybersquatting if you are actually sending them the visitors via an affiliate link / code ? Basically doing what they should have already done (i.e. bought the typo url).

Now I understand that most affiliate programs stipulate that you are not allowed to do this but some do not.

What legal claim do they have to the typo url if they are ultimately benefitting, does this come down to "having a legitimate claim to a domain" ??

[renamecor]

Blatant bump, just very surprised that no-one has commentedon this

[JayFCF]

I see this happening quite a bit lol. (must be my hurried typing)

If I ever get taken to a site thats doing that I always make sure I change the address in the address bar rather than clicking on their links.

I think its best to check with the network first though even if the merchant doesnt stipulate because the last thing you want is a legal case or withheld comissions.

I think the answer if you did ask would be no, for that very reason, but worth a shot lol.

Let me know how you get on.

I wonder if yeslaons.co.uk is taken

[accelerator]

Is it still classed as cybersquatting if you are actually sending them the visitors via an affiliate link / code ? Basically doing what they should have already done (i.e. bought the typo url).

What legal claim do they have to the typo url if they are ultimately benefitting, does this come down to "having a legitimate claim to a domain" ??

My understanding is that if you use affiliate links for the company whose typo it is, you seriously weaken your legal position and will make it easy for the company to take it off you and possibly claim damages against you. As soon as you advertise the company involved or services covered by their trademark, you are profiting from their intellectual property and you open yourself to legal challenge.

If you don't advertise the company or any products related to the company, you can argue you are not connected to the company and you could use the traffic for other promotions not related to the company's products. You can check the UK trademark for the classes of the trademark which the company has and avoid these products and services. Eventually you can hope the company might approach you for a sale of the domain (but don't approach them).

I am not condoning typo squatting and don't do it myself but thought I'd let you know my thoughts.

Rgds

[renamecor]

Accelerator, I see what you mean about pushing typo traffic to the genuine retailer, I can see that it does weaken your "legitimate right" to that typo domain.

Off to ponder some more,

yeslaons ...... LMAO

[nim-b]

If you want to do some extra reading to go along with your pondering on this, have a look at these nominet sections:
Domain names and trade marks:general overview
Tesco v Elogicom Ltd: Tesco case (affiliate case)

Essentially if you use the domain for anything related to the company and industries they work in it puts you on shaky legal ground. I don't think you could argue that by not having the rule in the affiliate T&Cs the company was giving you permission to use typo domains.

[Hero]

I don't think you could argue that by not having the rule in the affiliate T&Cs the company was giving you permission to use typo domains.

Unfortunately, although you are very true, common sense does not apply for some affiliates, so network & program Ts & Cs tend to just get bigger and bigger. I advise my merchants to include this in their terms just to be on the safe side.