Twitter goes after born-again typosquatter

Twitter has filed a cybersquatting complaint against the owner of the typo domain name twiter.com, seven years after it was first registered. The website at twiter.com currently bounces visitors to one of a number of dodgy competitions that try to persuade them to sign up to premium SMS text-message services. These site …

[M Gale]

This subject is simples.

Indeed. It's like that pesky insurance company, typosquatting so I end up being bombarded with sales talk about cheap car insurance when what I really wanted to do was compare meerkats!

Shame that Aleksandr Orlov likely doesn't have the money to file a complaint.

[Anonymous Coward]

typosquatting is prefectly legitamate

While an unpleasant annoyance for the site owner, typosquatting is a fact of business on the internet.. if you have a name you want, then buy the typos. If you didn't then silly you !

Any court action based on typosquatting is biased in favour of the larger more established player ... they should go after them on the basis of 'passing off' since they use similar branding..

I'm not trolling, I just think there are existing laws that apply and should be used as they are usually better established and thought out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can people on this site read more than a headline......

a) They didn't go to court. End of.

b) they didn't go to court because it can be very expensive.

This FAVOURS the small player, as it avoids spending several months / years in a battle with a company with big pockets.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ AC :13 June 15:42 GMT

"Can people on this site read more than a headline......"

No.

Thanks.

[Steven Knox]

Buy the typos?

"If you have a name you want, then buy the typos. If you didn't then silly you !":

If your trademark is just 5 characters long, and we limit the scenario to typos to possibly accidentally hitting an adjacent key on a standard QWERTY keyboard instead of the correct one, there are up to 59,049 combinations (depending on the specific letters).

Most of the existing laws are old enough that they don't adequately address concerns with electronic information in general, let alone domain names, and there's always the question of jurisdiction. The UDRP simplifies the process while leaving both parties with the right to sue if they aren't happy with the results.

It's too bad you're not trolling. I'd call your post half-passable if you were. You did a somewhat funny thing with the title, there, for example..

[Chris Phillips]

Open and shut case, no?

Given how the site you end up staring at via twiter.com is a blatant rip off of twitter itself, and refuses to admit that it's not Twitter it's hardly going to stand up to much

[Steve Brooks]

squatting?

Surely, since twiter was registered before twitter then twitter is the one typosquatting? Twitter is, after all, a simple misspelling of twiter, they should hand it over immediately.

[nsld]

Given that

Twiter.com existed 2 years before twitter.com it would be poetic if they went after twitter.com for the same thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twatter

I wonder how much money the typosquatted domain makes? Might have been cheaper for Twitter to just buy the domain name....

Its a shame they didnt counter claim against twitter - given the age of their registration...

[Anonymous Coward]

may have changed ownership once or more

One for the corrections department.

No need to publish