There was an article published on AmericanBar.org from June that dealt with one lawyer’s interpretation of domain investing. Tamara Kurtzman titled her article The Continued Hijacking and Ransoming of the Domain Name System by Modern-Day Corporate Privateers.
Ms. Kurtzman coined the phrase “Anticipatory Cybersquatting”
From the article:
Anticipatory cybersquatting is the practice of registering domain names with minimal present value in the hopes that these names will become desirable, and therefore increasingly valuable, in the future. Specifically, anticipatory cybersquatters register domains that have no connection with the registrant for the sole purpose of selling them at a later stage to companies that have a legitimate connection to that domain, and at a much higher price than for which it was originally purchased. The result is that new businesses often find that many, if not all, of the domain names that correspond to their trademarks, products, or services have already been registered by one of these domain-name privateers.
Andrew at DNW.com found the article a couple days ago and commented. Andrew rightfully questioned some of the content from the article.
I’m not sure what timeframe Kurtzman is considering, but I don’t find panels to be “increasingly broadening their interpretations.” It is true that some rogue panelists have tried to bend the plain language of UDRP to find in favor of Complainants, but this practice seems to have significantly diminished, especially since the release of the WIPO 3.0 update in 2017.
Andrew is correct and there is a reason for the confusion. The article the American Bar published in June of 2019 was actually a reprint, most publications make some note there was an update or modification to an article. This article did not make any such note, but it was originally published by Ms.Kurtzman in June of 2016, that’s why some of the statements don’t make sense.
In speaking with an expert when it comes to the UDRP, Gerald M. Levine of IPLegalCorner.com, Gerald told me,
“Anticipatory cybersquatting” is a made-up theory; there is no such claim under either UDRP or U.S. trademark law. It’s an idea that isn’t going anywhere.”