Risk
12/30/2008
02:32 PM
50%
50%

Verizon Wins $33 Million In Cybersquatting Case

The telecom said this is the largest-ever cybersquatting judgment, but it may have a hard time getting the money from OnlineNIC.

Verizon is taking it to cybersquatters, and the telecom said it has been awarded $33.2 million from a company trying to intentionally confuse Web users.

The ruling, which the telecom said is the largest-ever cybersquatting judgment, said OnlineNIC "unlawfully registered at least 663 domain names that were either identical or confusingly similar to Verizon's trademarks." The telecom was awarded $50,000 per domain name, which included the likes of iphonefromverizon.com and treoverizon.com.

OnlineNIC is a San Francisco-based domain registrar, and no representatives showed up to court. The company also faces similar lawsuits from Microsoft and Yahoo.

"This case should send a clear message and serve to deter cybersquatters who continue to run businesses for the primary purpose of misleading consumers," said Sarah Deutsh, Verizon's VP and associate general counsel, in a statement. "Verizon intends to continue to take all steps necessary to protect our brand and customers from Internet frauds and abuses."

Verizon may have a hard time getting any money, though, as it said OnlineNIC has worked hard to conceal the identity of its employees. The telecom said the company has used numerous shell entities, fictitious names, and deceptive contact information.

In 1999, Congress passed the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to register domain names that infringe on the trademark rights of individuals or corporations. Despite these laws, cybersquatting and typosquatting continue to flourish because they offer criminals a relatively easy way to make money. The United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization said cybersquatters have reached record numbers, and the practice has increased nearly 50% since 2005.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-3407
Published: 2014-11-27
The SSL VPN implementation in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software 9.3(.2) and earlier does not properly allocate memory blocks during HTTP packet handling, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via crafted packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq68888.

CVE-2014-4829
Published: 2014-11-27
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests tha...

CVE-2014-4831
Published: 2014-11-27
IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to hijack sessions via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-4832
Published: 2014-11-27
IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive cookie information by sniffing the network during an HTTP session.

CVE-2014-4883
Published: 2014-11-27
resolv.c in the DNS resolver in uIP, and dns.c in the DNS resolver in lwIP 1.4.1 and earlier, does not use random values for ID fields and source ports of DNS query packets, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cache-poisoning attacks via spoofed reply packets.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?