×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FreeCreditReport.com Wins 1,017 Domains By UDRP

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-even-a-finders-fee dept.

The Courts 184

typosquatting writes to mention that the largest domain dispute case since the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) was enacted ten years ago has been decided. The decision saw 1,017 cyber-squatting domains turned over to ConsumerInfo.com, owner of FreeCreditReport.com. The full decision can be read via the National Arbitration Forum website. "It would seem that this decision sets or reinforces a fairly strong precedent that trademark holders may be entitled to, not only to the domain name that exactly matches their trademark, but also to a wide swath of other domain names including nearly every possible misspelling or other variation of that trademark, potentially even if the trademark is comprised of generic words."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

184 comments

This is gthe only real answer (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093074)

to solve the important dilemma of people not wanting to be responsible for typing correctly.

Jeez this is so stupid.

Re:This is gthe only real answer (5, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093098)

No, some people ham-fist addressesd. You'll be tpying laong and hit teh wring button or forget if it was an underscore or a dash. THen where will you go? You don't know, and that's what a lot of scammers have been making money witj for a long tim.

Re:This is gthe only real answer (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093348)

No, some people ham-fist addressesd. You'll be tpying laong and hit teh wring button or forget if it was an underscore or a dash. THen where will you go? You don't know, and that's what a lot of scammers have been making money witj for a long tim.

Thankyou for posting to slahsdot.org, the fan site for dots and slashes!

Slahsdot.org - What You Need, When You Need It.

Re:This is gthe only real answer (2, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093506)

I have a better solution. Instead of redirecting all of the common misspellings of big sites back to the correct spelling (the typist learns nothing). You could have every typo redirect to goatze and tubgirl. Spelling errors will plummet in weeks.

Re:This is gthe only real answer (1)

Romancer (19668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093554)

Am I the only one who thought that this was funny because of the typo in the subject of his post?

This is gthe only real answer

People are currently modding it insightful...

Liar beats other liars? (5, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093084)

It's funny that "free"creditreport.com is upset that someone else is profiting off their name, when their name is designed to profit off someone else's. I don't think they existed before the US government mandated the credit agencies give you a free copy of your credit report every year (via annualcreditreport.com). "free"creditreport.com doesn't actually give you a credit report for free; you have to enroll in a reporting service to get it.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (4, Informative)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093148)

I fell for this. They want $19.99 a month to "protect" your credit.

Don't get me wrong though, it was kind of neat getting real time credit scores on your account, an email alert every time some yahoo looked at your report, and access to a one click instant credit lock. But in the end, unless your going to buy a house or a car you don't really need up to the second data on your report.

Though, to be honest, I think we should be given access, atleast once a month rather than once a year. Its not like the data is that hard to display and it be far more useful to check for credit card fraud.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093170)

I fell for the catchy jingle.

It's OK to admit it.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093226)

Be careful about checking your credit too often though.

When you check your credit too often, it dings your credit score. And it doesn't take much either.

Don't ask me why this is the case...

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093296)

If it was calculated/reported correctly it wouldn't. But there is a possibility that it is showing up in the same area as requests by credit card companies, etc. making it appear that you are requesting multiple credit cards/loans.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (3, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093844)

Don't ask me why this is the case...

Because - as I have recently found after starting a job here - the American banking system is utterly insane.

I can't believe you people still use cheques, for fuck's sake. And that even with a 6 figure income you're looking at 6-12 months of "credit building" before you can qualify for a cheap car loan without being raped on interest rates.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094008)

And welcome to the f'd up country that was founded by some British (et al) sons-a-bitches that were so into their f'd up God cult that they couldn't continue to fit in with the rest of the way too liberal (for the time) yet still f'd up God cultists in Europe. Don't be so hard on us though. In the last 230+ years we have at least keep the female breasts hidden. As far as banking here goes, just take your raping and move on. Never going to change. Us yanks are just too stupid and fearful (on average) to demand any better. Ya gets what ya deserves.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094096)

I can't believe you people still use cheques, for fuck's sake. And that even with a 6 figure income you're looking at 6-12 months of "credit building" before you can qualify for a cheap car loan without being raped on interest rates.

No, silly, this is America. We use checks. And we didn't fall for that chip-and-PIN-and-you're-liable-if-your-card-is-lost scam.

Anyhow, taking a loan to buy a car is almost always a mistake. Save your money, pay cash, be free.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094368)

And we didn't fall for that chip-and-PIN-and-you're-liable-if-your-card-is-lost scam.

What "scam" ? I'm not aware of any countries where the customer is liable for fraudulent transactions unless they've been grossly negligent (and being grossly negligent with your "checks" won't produce any different result).

Anyhow, taking a loan to buy a car is almost always a mistake. Save your money, pay cash, be free.

There are numerous situations where it makes more sense to get a loan. Everything from not having sufficient cash on hand, to being able to get a better return on the money elsewhere.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094672)

undoing overrated

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094108)

Citation please. I was able to qualify for a low (0%) loan on a new vehicle, with only your normal everyday 5 figure income. Dodge Diesel truck--not some econobox.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094346)

Citation please. I was able to qualify for a low (0%) loan on a new vehicle, with only your normal everyday 5 figure income. Dodge Diesel truck--not some econobox.

Without a credit rating ?

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093404)

if you need real-time monitoring of your credit report to buy a house, maybe you shouldn't be buying a house.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (4, Informative)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093422)

...at least once a month rather than once a year...

Tip: There are three credit agencies. You can check each one once a year for free. Check a different one every four months ...

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093566)

From a real world POV thats a useful tip. From a bureaucracy and goverment POV. WHYYYYY? wtf we don't need redundancy in these situations. I can see why socialism is so unpopular in the states when the system is so retarded.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094354)

The credit-reporting agencies are not government entities.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094660)

And yet all 3 have the incontestable power to destroy your life.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (2, Insightful)

OnlineAlias (828288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093438)

Let us not forget that the majority of these sites are owned by the credit reporting agencies themselves. They have set up a system of credit reporting that is so ridiculously flawed security wise that they can now sell the people "protection" from the very same system. Good business to be in...

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (5, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093528)

We should be given access on a completely unrestricted basis 24/7/365 including holidays, weekends, etc. This is data that is used to deny you bank loans, car loans, causes higher rates on many things, etc. No one should be allowed to keep this data without allowing the affected parties to view every single fucking record. Furthermore, there should be financial penalties for any inaccuracies. They accidentally show that you paid late once when you really didn't? That's a $20000 fine, paid to YOU. I don't know why we think that companies need to be allowed to keep records like this and use them in business dealings but keep them completely secret. (Access once per year is nonsense, that's as close to secret as humanly possible)

Denied? You get a free credit report (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094366)

This is data that is used to deny you bank loans

When a U.S. lender uses a credit report to deny you a loan, you have the right under the FCRA to know which bureau the lender used, so you can get a copy of your credit report yourself.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094382)

And all it will take is you getting enough people together to out-lobby the people who don't want that to happen.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (4, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094446)

What, you think the purpose of a credit file is to serve the borrower?

Credit scores and credit reports are for lenders. Why would they fine themselves for incorrectly reporting your credit history? The system is broken not because there is inadequate oversight or accountability regarding lending and reporting practices (though it is obviously grossly inadequate). The system is broken because it is designed from its very foundations to ensure that no matter what, lenders always come out on top. This is why fraud is not more aggressively pursued, and why incorrect reporting is shrugged off as a necessary part of doing business. The free-market mentality is that the only mechanism required to ensure correct reporting is the loss of revenue due to competitors valuation of lending risk being more accurate than one's own. And of course, the consumer is the one who always gets shafted under this system.

Credit reports are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they are a necessary aspect of determining credit risk. On the other hand, they are used these days to evaluate far more than one's creditworthiness--and they do so using very personal and specific data about you, information that you would think ought to be your right to know whether they are being used for or against you. The system is corrupt because it is being increasingly applied to aspects of one's life far beyond what was originally intended, yet the borrower is really the only party who truly cares about the accuracy of the data it contains.

Re:Liar beats other liars? Mod up (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094174)

... and it be far more useful to check for credit card fraud.

Precisely, and that's exactly what the Big Three don't want. If people started checking their credit record at will, and as a matter ordinary household economics, the credit bureaus would be under a lot more pressure to clean up their respective acts. That will cost them lots of money, and they're perfectly happy that 'x" number of us get screwed out of our savings and our credit every year. Otherwise, they would have to actually fix the broken system they've built. There's no incentive whatsoever for them to treat us decently in this respect, mainly because there's no downside to them if we get shafted. Congress, of course, could fix that very easily with effective regulation and enforcement, but it's unlikely that will ever come to pass ... too many billions (of our money) on the line.

Furthermore, the corporations that depend upon the credit system (banks and credit-card issuers, for example) want millions of people who don't understand the system, don't understand how to improve their score, or what affects it. That way they can keep milking those people with high interest rates, late charges, and so forth. It's no small potatoes, my friend.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093168)

But their commercials are so catchy!

Re:Liar beats other liars? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093228)

I am surprised that they themselves aren't considered domain squatters on "creditreport.com" -- if they argue that howtogetafreecreditreport.com is infringing on freecreditreport.com, I can't think of why they aren't infringing on creditreport.com
Even more so considering that they have paid Google for a sponsored link when someone searches for "creditreport.com".

Re:Liar beats other liars? (2, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093368)

I own Awesomesauce.com Therefore, I should own autosauce.com, sillysauce.com, imawesome.com, holycrap.com, anyotherurl.com, In fact I think because the person trying to go to my URL might type in microsoft.com, I should get that too.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (4, Informative)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093278)

Not only do you have to enroll, but every month they charge you a fee of approximately $10/month. Which might seem okay if you could actually see your credit report every month.... I couldn't figure out how. I had to call them and cancel. The kind of cancellation where you have to convince them that you don't want to be a customer. As far as I am concerned freecreditreport.com is scum of the internet.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093346)

As far as I am concerned freecreditreport.com is scum of the internet.

What, are we forgetting 4chan entirely?

Re:Liar beats other liars? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093424)

Their front page is (and always has been) right up front that they are selling you a service.

They even give you the link to the "real" free credit report.

Name aside, they don't seem too shady. There are plenty of opportunities to buy something you don't need, this is just another one. It's like buying clothes that say "dry clean only" right on the tag. You know what you are getting up front.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093856)

Their front page is (and always has been) right up front that they are selling you a service. They even give you the link to the "real" free credit report. Name aside, they don't seem too shady. There are plenty of opportunities to buy something you don't need, this is just another one. It's like buying clothes that say "dry clean only" right on the tag. You know what you are getting up front.

And the FTC is really looking to hammer them on the "free" credit report. The FTC tried to get the domain name due to freecreditreport.com being misleading and too close to the government's own site.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093926)

Very true. In fact, the FTC has already won one civil complaint against them (Experian) and is gearing up for another.

What I really don't understand is why the FTC didn't use a .gov domain name when they set up their website.

Re:Liar beats other liars? (3, Informative)

alecto (42429) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094356)

The FTC didn't set it up. The big three set it up to comply with the FACT Act (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act). Although I agree that a .gov would have been much more apropos.

freecreditreport.com sucks ass. (5, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093094)

Don't do it. You give them your info and get a free credit report, but you have to opt out like AOL or else they'll charge you. When you call them to opt out they haggle and harass you like AOL did ("Are you sure you want to cancel? Here are our other plans...") and you have to tell them no multiple times until either of you gives up. Then they continue to spam the living fuck out of your inbox.

/rant

Really horrible (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093102)

There are millions of people in the world with the same name. If I want a web site in my name, and someone else has it, I have to wait for them to die before I can have a site with my name on it. Unlike license plates where I can put up -01 or -02 or whatever, I can't do that now (oh noes, its too close). This is really really dumb. If you've ever tried to find someone on Facebook and has to go through ten pages of people with the same name, you know what I mean.

Re:Really horrible (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093202)

Unless you're called "freecreditreport" I don't see how this affects you.

IANAL but if your name is JohnSmith and you register JohnSmithsPage.com, and end up being sued by John Smith's Brewery [wikipedia.org], you'd have a fair crack at defending your page. Especially if you put "This page is not associated with John Smith's Brewery in any way" somewhere on your page.

However if your page contains trash talk about John Smith's Brewery, or is obviously trying to fool people into thinking their at John Smith's Brewery's official site, you'd have a harder time convincing a judge. FOR example, check out this site [nissan.com], which still manages to hang on to its domain name despite having the force of a VERY LARGE company's legal army against it.

Re:Really horrible (1, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093372)

How is talking trash fooling people into thinking your that site?

If you are intentioal lisleading people on the page, then you ahe an issue, but even then I would argue they oly recourse to to force you to no longer ahve that page. Giving the domain to the company that claims to be harmed is just cheesy and reeks.

Re:Really horrible (2, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093786)

How is talking trash fooling people into thinking your that site?

      It's not. I made two separate points. But you're going to have a hard time getting sympathy from a judge if you're obviously antagonizing the other site owner.

Re:Really horrible (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093624)

The law has changed as a result of the ruling. But it does show the importance of trademarks even on the internet. Typosquarting is a money making scheme, that offers nothing to the public, and i'm not sorry that the law is removing it. In your example with people reals name, yes your reasonibly ok with using your name, no matter that trademark. I believe that a Mister McDonalds own restrarant survived a trademark despute against larger clown logoed opposition.

---

Internet Businesses [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Really horrible (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094020)

Typosquarting is a money making scheme, that offers nothing to the public

Typosquirting is also a money making scheme, that offers something to the public if done, er, in public.

Re:Really horrible (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093730)

Unless you're called "freecreditreport" I don't see how this affects you.

IANAL but if your name is JohnSmith and you register JohnSmithsPage.com, and end up being sued by John Smith's Brewery [wikipedia.org], you'd have a fair crack at defending your page.

Tell that to Mike Rowe [wikipedia.org]

Re:Really horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094488)

the nissan.com case is special. He registered it when nissan was still datsun. Not a very good case study for "same name" registration.

Re:Really horrible (1)

mccrew (62494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093216)

I call BS.

The whole issue with trademarks is whether a name is confusingly similar. Seems pretty clear to me that certain parties are trying to leech off a valid trademark holders name by registering common misspellings which would certainly meet the "confusingly similar" test.

There is no equivalence between your example of common name domains JohnDoe.com and a real trademark CocaCola.com, or freecreditreport.com in this case.

Re:Really horrible (1)

mccrew (62494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093232)

There is no equivalence between your example of common name domains JohnDoe.com and a real trademark CocaCola.com, or freecreditreport.com in this case.

Following up to my own post, no cookie for me!

If your name is Mike Rowe, then ignore this one point, for everyone else it stands. :)

Doesn't seem unfair to me... (4, Interesting)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093104)

I do not really agree that domains that only bear similarity to a mark should be transferred, but in this case, they are part of a large collection of domains that appear to be very obviously registered in bad faith, with the sole intention of typosquatting.

I wonder if the registrant paid for those domains... this should have set him back at least $5k.

Woohoo! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093116)

freecriditreeport.com isn't on the list.

Re:Woohoo! (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093218)

Does it seem wrong to you that the very first link on a search for Cridi trees is a home mortgage company?

Sets a precedant (2, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093122)

It would seem that this decision sets or reinforces a fairly strong precedent that trademark holders may be entitled to, not only to the domain name that exactly matches their trademark, but also to a wide swath of other domain names including nearly every possible misspelling or other variation of that trademark, potentially even if the trademark is comprised of generic words.

Does it? It strikes me that FreeCreditReport variants have more potential to defraud regular people than your regular news site. If slashdot tried to do the same thing, and pick up all of the .coms, .nets, etc on its variants, it would probably be shot down. It would be a bit nice if this precendent was viewed in context as an exception where the public would benefit from not having ambiguous urls over the corporate entity actually owning the urls.

Re:Sets a precedant (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093252)

What does this mean for those who have their surname owned by a cyber squatter that wants a buzillion dollars for the domain?

Re:Sets a precedant (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093634)

Have you ever considered that they're doing you a favor? People who get family domain names based on their own name are usually the worst combination of dorky and egotistical. Do yourself a favor and register something creative instead.

Tack on a generic (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094418)

Buy your surname followed by a generic term related to what you sell. For instance, Staisy Example would find example.com taken and buy examplegreenhouse.com or something.

Re:Sets a precedant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093498)

I was with you right up till the "public benefit" part; the FreeCreditReport people are only about one step above the typosquatting scum in this case. They're still trying to scam a $20/month service off on people who come to their site for something "free". Maybe they can team up with the Video Professor people and find even BETTER ways to rip people off...

Re:Sets a precedant (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094340)

I was wondering since this sounds like it went through arbitration rather than an actual court, does it set a precedent? I mean a legal precedent? IANAL, so I don't know.

use annualcreditreport.com instead (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30093128)

You can get a really-and-truly free annual credit report from this website [annualcreditreport.com]

FreeCreditReport.com charges $15 and is run by lying, typo-squatting douches at Experian [google.com].

Re:use annualcreditreport.com instead (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093402)

Question. If you needed more than the free annual credit report from annualcreditreport.com (say, more frequent looks, or perhaps the numeric scores) who would you go to?

Re:use annualcreditreport.com instead (2, Informative)

inio (26835) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093440)

The reporting agencies directly:

http://www.transunion.com/ [transunion.com]
http://www.equifax.com/home/en_us [equifax.com]
http://www.experian.com/ [experian.com]

Re:use annualcreditreport.com instead (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094056)

Nope. MyFICO [myfico.com] The scores you get from the credit reporting agencies are generally not the scores that are actually used to extend credit and thus are not even worth the paper they are printed on - or the pixels on the screen.

Re:use annualcreditreport.com instead (1)

David_W (35680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093716)

For the scores you can go to Credit Karma [creditkarma.com].

(Although I find it funny there's an ad-supported site that will give you your score for free when you want it, but not your report...)

Precedent against Google? (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093136)

> not only to the domain name that exactly matches their trademark, but also ... nearly every possible misspelling or other variation of that trademark

Right now Larry Page and Sergey Brin are yelling at each other over their diamond-encrusted platinum iPhones. On the bright side this guy claims that Google earns $32M-50M on typosquatting. That's the sort of cash they could easily walk away:
http://www.itworld.com/internet/56426/professor-google-earns-32-50m-typosquatting-sites [itworld.com]

A battle between two evil companies (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093140)

... means squat.

Re:A battle between two evil companies (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093276)

You mean you're not happy to see that a credit report scammer has protected itself against credit report scammer typo scammers?

Re:A battle between two evil companies (2, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093442)

So guys from freecreditreport.com, cybersquatters, AND their lawyers were all in one courtroom at one time? Damn,there's never a suicide bomber around when you need one

Re:A battle between two evil companies (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094070)

TA says they represented themselves, no lawyers were harmed in filing the suit. Except the losers lawyers. And even then, harm seems like such a strong word.

Another win for the legal community (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093174)

Get ready for many more such lawsuits, thus providing job security for lawyers and judges.

Reasons FTA.. (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093176)

In one or more of the following ways
(1) adding "ing," changing the tense of the mark to a present participle;
(2) adding the letter "s," changing the mark from singular to plural;
(3) adding a generic or descriptive word to the mark;
(4) adding a generic or descriptive word to the mark that has an obvious association with Complainant's business;
(5) adding an abbreviation of a geographic word to the mark; (6) adding a geographic word to the mark;
(7) misspelling the mark by changing a letter in the mark to a different letter;
(8) misspelling the mark by changing a letter in the mark to a number;
(9) misspelling the mark by adding a letter within the mark;
(10) adding a letter to the beginning or end of the mark;
(11) misspelling the mark by adding a number within the mark;
(12) adding a number to the beginning or end of the mark;
(13) omitting the period between the first-level domain, "www," and the mark;
(14) changing the generic top-level domain (gTLD) included in the mark from ".com" to ".org;" and/or
(15) adding hyphens to the mark. Any individual disputed domain name typically contains Complainant's mark and one of these changes.

I'm glad they won. The showed plenty of examples of other companies that also won b/c of squatters like Bank Of America vs wwwbankofamerica.com (squatter removed the ".").

Re:Reasons FTA.. (3, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093318)

One could argue that Bank of America opens themselves up to typosquatters by using www.bankofamerica.com instead of their old and easier typed domain, bofa.com
I notice that Barnes & Noble too wants users to type www.barnesandnoble.com instead of bn.com

No, it doesn't make the typosquatters any more right, but I think one is justified in also blaming stupidmarketingdirectors@companieswithverylongdomainnames.com

Re:Reasons FTA.. (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093456)

they have just realized that people are too lazy/stupid to type urls anymore. I know a lot of people who google youtube to get to youtube where they then search for a video (this one is especially stupid since you could probably just search your video on google and it would link you to youtube or you could type in youtube.com instead of google...)

When these users get their page of results, they want to then click on the link to barnesandnoble.com since they aren't looking for the BN company. Users are stupid...bn.com is great for email addresses but not so good for name recognition on a list.

Re:Reasons FTA.. (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093654)

I think one is justified in also blaming marketing directors

Removed the redundancy from that for you...

Re:Reasons FTA.. (2, Insightful)

TheRealJFM (671978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094378)

These domain names are usually used because they're easier to *say* than shorthand versions.

I used to think exactly the same way as you, but then I worked at a radio station for a year. Some of those short names can be quite easily misunderstood - letters are notoriously confusable. That's why there's a radio phonetic alphabet.

Freecreditreport.com is a criminal scam (5, Informative)

Michael G. Kaplan (1517611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093238)

The New York Times recently did an extensive article on this scam [nytimes.com].

The entire basis of their operation is to fool people into paying for something advertised as free. They claim that their site discloses its fees, but the disclosure is still discrete enough to fool massive numbers of people.

Any site where you make a purchase should disclose the fact that you are making a purchase with at least the level of clarity that you encounter on a reputable site such as Amazon.com. Also a service that advertises itself as "free" should never be allowed to charge -- even if they gratuitously disclosed their fee (which they don't) it would still be a bait an switch scam.

Re:Freecreditreport.com is a criminal scam (5, Interesting)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093376)

But its even deeper than this. Freecreditreport leeches off an even bigger scam. The whole premise that people allow, expect and pay these three companies to collect and sell their own information back to others is a intrinsically a scam.

The "big three" do not see or treat consumers as their customers - which explains why they are so difficult to deal with: their customers are other companies that buy information about the "worthiness" of potential customers, like you.

The absurd and unfair treatment that people received from these private companies was so bad that the laws were changed to require them to provide some information back to the unwilling subjects of their profits.

Re:Freecreditreport.com is a criminal scam (2, Interesting)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094144)

The "big three" do not see or treat consumers as their customers

This is exactly correct. Not only are individuals not their customers, lenders actively profit when credit reports are worse than they should be, and these profits support the reporting agencies directly.

It is the exact same scam as the ratings agencies passing off sub-prime mortgages as AAA. And it is completely due to the fact that the entire industry is supported by taxpayer money; financial institutions that fail to assess risk correctly are prevented from failing.

Re:Freecreditreport.com is a criminal scam (1)

ffflala (793437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094420)

I am really torn about this. I believe that the business model of Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion is lecherous and pox on society -- they essentially quantify and qualify the reputation info of individuals and sell it to companies that want to know an individual's reputation before doing business with the individual. Congressional action against these companies goes back pretty far -- consumers used to have no effective recourse at all, you couldn't find out why your credit report was negative, and credit reporting companies would mark you down for prejudiced criteria (your race, gender, marital status, age, etc).

OTOH, to keep these companies from doing it would require assigning a property right to facts about you. You would have an ownership interest and the ability to restrict the use of your name, age, residence, jobs, and transactions with all others simply because you were a part of it. I don't think society could function if we needed someone's permission to talk about them to others.

Re:Freecreditreport.com is a criminal scam (4, Informative)

Zanix (684798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093430)

It's actually even worse than this. There is no cancel option on their website which means to stop service, you have to call them and deal with their trashy customer service. That doesn't even mention the fact that they will refuse to delete your account if you ask. They claim they have to keep the credit card for record purposes. Somehow I doubt it. The only way to get your credit card number out of their hands is to cancel it.

Its's a ripoff of "annualcreditreport.com". (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093690)

FreeCreditReport is a ripoff of AnnualCreditReport.com [annualcreditreport.com], the real free site which the U.S. Federal Trade Commission requires the three major credit bureaus to maintain at their expense.

"ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. and Freecreditreport.com are not affiliated with the annual free credit report program. Under a new Federal law, you have the right to receive a free copy of your credit report once every 12 months from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies. To request your free annual report under that law, you must go to www.annualcreditreport.com."

Not as much of a ripoff as you might think (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093766)

If you read the New York Times article linked to a couple of posts up, they mention that the company at freecreditreport.com started selling reports *before* the government started requiring free annual credit reports. Of course, once this started, the chance for confusion helped them, but they actually started it independently of the government requirement.

Erm (2, Informative)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093816)

Has to be said : what exactly do you get "for free" from freecreditreport.com? You can't get any information without paying and signing up for a service that you have to beg the phone reps to get canceled. Scarier still, the company that runs the site has the power to truly screw you over if you contest the charges on your credit card, since they ARE one of the credit reporting companies.

slashdot has been trolled. (5, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093838)

The submitter's name is "typosquatting." The linked article was written by Alias Encore's PR flack , and exists for the sole purpose of selling Alias-Encore's software and services-- namely "helping companies increase highly qualified traffic to their websites through the strategic acquisition of misspelled domain names."

Re:slashdot has been trolled. (2, Interesting)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30094560)

I tried to log into my sourceforge account yesterday via SSH and mistyped the url, transposing 2 letters.
I got a login prompt and dutifully typed in my username and password, without success.
Only after staring at my commands for a minute did I see the error.
I immediately changed my password.
More squatting scums!

Credit is fascism (4, Insightful)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093864)

Any company or government institution can put whatever they want on your credit report and you have no right to defend yourself. Serial killers even get a trial.

FCR.c Is a Total Scam (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30093896)

FreeCreditReport.com is a total scam. It's not free - you have to pay to get the report. But everyone's entitled to a free credit report once a year anyway, direct from the reporting corps, under US credit laws.

And now that scam has funded this evil precedent.

Goddamn the lawyers.

FreeCreditReport.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094104)

* Ruling applies with enrollment to Triple Advantage(tm).

Only a concern for the American Empire wage slave (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094422)

That worthless bullshit garbage means NOTHING outside the borders of the Empire.

Seriously, you can rack up tens of thousands in debt and just bounce to another country and get citizenship there leaving your silly social number and all that Imperial rabid consumerism as you get a new ID/identity for your new citizenship. All your three Master's can do then is cry into their platinum cups while sitting on their gold thrones on top of their titanium floors with embedded diamonds and pearls.

The only check you need is a reality check with this set of debt chains you Imperials so proudly wear for some asinine reason.

scam site makes my blood boil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094462)

Here in the UK I was recommended to join the UK version of this site BY MY BANK. The credit report was worthless and I couldn't cancel my account.

Months later when I saw the sneaky submarine charges on my card bills I rung up several times but never got my money back. The site is a low life scam- pure and simple. It has multiple complaints all over the net yet when I asked customer service each time if they feel good working for a scam website they would reply that it's perfectly clear and in the TOS.

Come on, who reads the TOS ever? It says on the website FREE credit report (in caps)... Therefore I assume it's free.

Stay away. They should be shut down. They stole money off me.

Ren Faire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30094508)

Fuck your friends, fuck your dad, fuck your mom!
Never mind, they've been droning our songs
Since we first showed up with our fag hats on!
If you're not into pork sword fights
Pointy slippers and green wool tights
Take a trip from a jerk who knows
Notso Free Credit Report dot com, let's go!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...