'Donuts Inc.' Accused Of Fueling Cybersquatting After Bidding $56 Million For New Domain Names

Really? Those domains are not copyrighted, there is no law against it. They payed for it.

Do you sue real life real estate firms for gathering real estate for sale when value increases? No you don't.

It's business. If "apple" wants the .apple - then let them buy it - sure they can afford the price if they ask 2x the device value from brainwashed consumers.

What gives the big firms and such the right to sue/cry about it? Why do they have to have the first call for those?
What if i make apple pies in my town and want a site called Pie.apple ? Itsn ot like anyone woudl care if id sue them for "cybersquatting" the domain name.

yeah tipical, fatty apple complains again not having the money coming right in their mouthes all readdy to be eaten...
move your asses if you want something,
"theres always someone better than you"-counterStrike,
you just cant complain about it!

---
(Type 0.72) = We are still just cleaver monkeys!

I suppose across the cosmos as the aliens listen to this conversation, find us humans squabbling upon internet names just silly, since they only communicate via telepathy or in binary.

There is an error in this story -- Donuts Inc. is not being sued.

The reporter is likely referring to an attorney's letter to ICANN making assumed and unfounded accusations regarding our eligibility as an applicant for new gTLDs. As we have stated in response to previous coverage of these anonymous and incorrect accusations, Donuts supports ICANN's mission of expanding consumer choice and competition in Internet naming. We have applied for varied new gTLDs (including, for example, .BUSINESS, .FAMILY, .PETS, .WINE and others) which, once awarded, will be administered with significantly more protection mechanisms than exist in .COM and other existing gTLDs. These protections against infringement and abuse include those mandated by ICANN, as well as additional protections Donuts has created independently (some after consultation with law enforcement and trademark holders).

The letter is wrong to assert that Donuts is ineligible to apply for new gTLDs, and further wrong to suggest the company will run an unstable registry and will ignore infringement or abuse. Consumers and end users will be far better protected under Donuts' gTLDs than they are today in existing namespace.

The anonymous party hiding behind this letter presents assumptions as fact, makes presumably intentional misstatements about Donuts and its leadership, and does not bother to understand the extensive criteria for new gTLD registries -- criteria Donuts easily exceeds.

Fortunately, application evaluators have access to the full application documents and Donuts' significant qualifications therein.The Donuts team is gratified that industry colleagues have said they can recognize a smear campaign when they see it. Collectively, our team has more than fifty years of contributions to Internet naming, and anticipate providing new options for individuals and organizations by bringing a wide variety of new gTLDs to the marketplace.

what Bryan implied I'm shocked that you able to make $8479 in four weeks on the computer. did you read this web link...Nxy.in/ftr2c

There's a fine line between domain cybersquatting, trademark infringement and generic domains that could be considered either "generic" or a trademark. .Apple could very well be considered a generic term, as long as it's not being used in association with electronics. There was a big dispute a few years ago where Ebay was trying to penalize anyone that had the word "bay" in their domain name, even if it was clearly not associated with Ebay. If there's no clear infringement that is "confusingly similar", it comes down to how much the trademark or domain holder is willing to throw at legal fees to keep the domain or acquire it.

The actual application list can be seen online, most, if not all, are truly generic domain strings. Do a Google search for "Reveal Day 13 June 2012"

Those donuts sure look yummy!

@Colin Lecher,

Your article is factually incorrect in the following sentence:
"...raising the specter of potential cybersquatting, the practice of sitting on a piece of web real estate and waiting for it to gain value..."

You are defining cybersquatting as "the practice of sitting on a piece of web real estate and waiting for it to gain value." This is incorrect.

What you are actually defining is domain name speculation, and it is no different than real estate speculation or building a spec house with the intention of selling it later for more than it cost to build it.

The correct definition of cybersquatting is "registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else."

I hope you clarify your story so others don't continue to propagate this view about domain name speculation.

buncha crap, paying money for something that doesnt exist. i have an imaginary pony, its for sale to the first idiot i can convince it actually has a value. Cybersquatting , domain name speculation, either way its a con game by a bunch of thieves. You can call it any version of legalese that suits your con game, like innovative purchasing, or domain registry , or fat pony inc. The words are irrelevant.

Heres a real word, that describes a real principle, Dharma. (hint, its not a tv show with greg) Look it up, rhymes with karma.