The Blind Leading Those Who Can Not See
Beware of Domain Name Traffickers. by John F. Letchford: (From the Archer and Greiner Intellectual Property website.)
Excerpt: “”Domain parking sites collect and index additional links where domain name registrants share revenue generated by web traffic but do not directly compete with the holders of similar legitimate trademarks or brand names. Registrants of parking sites typically use computer software to automatically register expired domain names and then ‘park’ those domains on pay-per-click portal sites..”
http://www.archerip.com/beware-of-domain-name-traffickers/
***FS*** That statement above is just wrong. That is not a “typical” parking practice. In fact if anything in this author’s piece is “typical” it’s the incorrect use of industry lingo and vernacular serving to cheapen a well intended piece summarizing the ills that plague the domain industry.. It’s unfortunate that some IP wonks (intentionally or unintentionally) throw the baby out with the bath-water, lumping domain parking, legitimate monetization and domain name investment activities with the darker ills of kiting trademarks and cybersquatting. Reading this piece I was left wondering what kind of Internet folks like Mr. Letchford would have us all visit? There is no Internet without domain name registrants. Shrill pieces which lump the good and bad elements of domain investment together, simply serve to flail their arms at decent newcomers wanting to learn more about the space.
I get the sense that the secondary domain “trafficking” or domain resale industry would surely be legitimate if it were controlled by “legitimate” clients like mother telco or father infrastructure co.. or aunt search engine – any legitimate brand really, who will pay the bills of IP ‘experts’ who know little of entrepreneurship and turn a blind eye to cottage industry American capitalism.. I have a good deal of disdain for those who come late to an industry, know little about the subject matter about which they write, then speak from an expert’s pulpit, only to place their feet in their mouths by mischaracterizing the space they profess to have knowledge about.
***FS*** So much loose money and price swings in the domain business… a perfect opportunity for ne’er-do-wells to profit.. Only one problem.. it’s hard to keep a secret on the Internet. Crime doesn’t pay.. especially online.
.. not so good for me.. I wouldn’t invest in this co.
In the Washington Post no less:
“Thank God” they chose the Bahamas and not the Caymans.. I’ve got enough confusion problems in my neighborhood. The bummer reading this list of co’s like “Highlands International Investment” is that all these co’s actually hold good generic domain names as well. In fact Highlands related co’s were held out as the 
The single biggest thing that struck me reading this story and lawsuit, is how the domain holder is such a patsy in this.. like a mule in the drug trade. 
Why would ICANN ignore an obvious problem? Everybody profits on this: Versisign makes millions on this defendant’s portfolio of typosquatting names (on his kept registrations) and assured renewals on good names from the “churning”.. they don’t want ICANN to change the rules. ICANN gets considerable fees on each of the millions of kept registrations too, so it turns a blind-eye, promising to “study the tasting problem” (basically ignoring it), Google makes millions and millions more fencing the so called “stolen traffic”.. especially frustrating because the plaintiff is permitted to steal that same type of traffic with impunity in keyboard redirect applications which send same traffic to the same “fence”; Google.
Summary: Calvin brings his wallet to bear, challenging over-reaching ne’er-do-wells who would covet his names. He plans to argue that “domain’s are not property” and that domains which contain his trademarks are not subject to seizure as assets.. He’s rolling with precedent so should be a piece of cake.
Summary: A guy who could have bought billions of dollars worth of domain real estate by applying his foresight (but didn’t) now declares “domain names dead” and hypothesizes that we will abandon domain names in favor of 
Of course, none of this speaks to the inequity of 
“”A little over-reaching here, No? 
Quote: “”Although Verizon opposes net neutrality, it has also said repeatedly that it would not block content or favor its own offerings over rivals–although it now appears to be doing just that”"
This is an area of the law that isn’t fully tested or developed yet.. If your car goes speeding down the road, the police officer writes you a ticket he doesn’t get to keep your car.. If I place a billboard in my front yard, the city may fine me because of an ordinance which prohibits that, but they don’t get to take my house.. Why should the simple act of serving an advertisement (that you don’t control) cause you to loose the generic common law rights in our name?
