Karl make a very good argument here, but it raises another issue. Karl Auerbach wrote: ....
Don't forget that trademarks are a consumer protection device: they are created by the law so that consumers can identify products and services and distinguish those products from competing products and services.
I totally agree. However we need to take that one step further into the cyber realm.
....
Trade and service marks do not exist because of some natural law ... Not correct, but we can take that offline if you are interested :)
The marks are all too often abused to lure the unsuspecting Internet user into believing he/she is dealing with that company. There is no real service or product behind the impostor to that brand, other than a strong desire to defraud the intended victim. On the side of the mark holder, they may not chose to take steps against the abuse of his mark. Taking those steps will cost money. As such they have to weigh the consequences of not taking steps vs the cost of taking steps, a pure business decision. However it does not directly translate into the mark usage on the net. Daily, marks and brands are being abused in scams, many belonging to well known companies, yet the owners do not protect these marks since their clients are not directly targeted. A typical usage would be job scams, escrow scams or advance fee fraud where are mark is repetitively used, many times a complete copy of a website, with the pure intent of defrauding internet users. A good example could be NatWest Bank that was spoofed 424 times for advance fee fraud purposes in the past few years: http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=natwest (only listed spoofs we found, many may not be listed) Likewise in no specific order, HSBC 163, London Scottish Bank (now closed) 78, Citi Bank 135 etc times. Interesting point: Many times the spoof domain claimed to be based in a country where that bank has no presence, yet the website clearly showed that bank's logo. In very few of these instances the real bank intervened, only too glad that somebody else was looking into it. To just prove the impunity with which criminals abuse domains; even law enforcement agencies are being spoofed: Interpol - http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=interpol FBI - http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=fbi United Nations - http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=united+nations The mark holders cannot be blamed either. The disproportionate cost of defending a mark v.s. the the cost of a cheap domain with no verified registration data, even free domains, makes this an economically unfeasible exercise and no detriment to the abuser. Sadly legitimate businesses have been forced to close doors due to this very problem. Many victims also exist, having lost their livelihood, and on the odd occasion, their lives to such usage. Regards Derek