In California, on August 23, the battle against cybersquatting took an important turn as Governor Gray Davis signed into a law a bill that makes it illegal to register Internet names of other people with "bad faith" intent. Under this bill, trademark protection is extended to names of celebrities (and the heirs of celebrities) which federal law did not cover earlier. Under this law, courts can order "squatters" to restore money that they have gained through this practice and pay $2,500 per incident.

On August 7, the family of rock star Jimi Hendrix won a case against the holder of the Internet address www.jimihendrix.com. The Geneva-based World Intellectual Court ruled that by using the guitar hero's name in the website, the owners of the domain name had violated copyright laws. The family owns the name Jimi Hendrix under common law. This is only one of several lawsuits pending in which celebrities - including Julia Roberts and Jethro Tull - have begun to sue to evict cybersquatters.

Many cybersquatters have been using domain names as a way of hijacking legitimate businesses, often by using their names in pornographic websites. Bargainbid.com was the domain name of an Internet start-up based in New York City. It presumably attracted people who were interested in buying computer-related goods through an auction over the Internet. But potential customers who left out the second "a" would log onto something different: "We decided to get out of the auction business, but don't despair! Coming soon! Jungle Love and Down on the Farm! Featuring: All along the Hitching Post, Mississippi Sheep are Easy."

Hundreds of other high profile businesses have found that when people mispell their names, they wind up where they never intended to be: in pictures of people engaged in sex acts, and other pornographic images. This is all the work of cybersquatters: people who profit from the domain name which includes - or resembles - the name of a famous company or person. Some domain names can be purchased for about $35, registered on the World Wide Web. Those names can then be sold at a large profit to pornographic websites who want to attract new viewers to their websites, or to the nameholders themselves, who don't want to be associated with bondage gear. Dan Parisi of New Jersey, for instance, used the White House as a way of launching his infamous "whitehouse.com" pornographic website. Largely because of the name, his site gets 500,000 visits a month. Is this a legitimate way of doing business? While most agree that this cybersquatting is a shady route to riches, the legal grounds for prosecuting them is shaky. For the first time, names are being given trademark status and protection under the law. While many in California will welcome Governor Gray's bill (which passed unanimously), the legal implications are going to be sticky. Does this mean you can't have a web site with the name of an up-and-coming movie actor? Or does it mean that words like "Madonna" or "Sting" have become the exclusive property of the celebrities who picked them?

On One Hand...

It's time for courts to stand up to cybersquatters. These pirates of the web have been crawling through the loopholes of trademark laws in an effort to make a quick buck - or a quick million, in some cases. By grabbing someone's domain name, or a clever variation on that domain, they have managed to divert millions of dollars in capital by legitimate companies or people who don't want their names to be confused with pornographic websites. Since pornographic cybersquatters prey on human error, they are capable of harming both the customer and the trademark owner. Cybersquatting has turned into a highly profitable enterprise over the past decade or so; the government should take steps to crack down on what is essentially a form of internet blackmail.

On the Other Hand...

The new anticybersquatting laws are legally unsound. What if the government prevented anyone from using phone numbers resembling "famous" numbers "in bad faith?" By using the "bad faith" argument, many of the holders of larger trademarks could use the threat of litigation to force legitimate businesses - who have nothing to do with pornography - into giving up their domain names. Bad faith is a highly subjective basis for determining guilt, and defending against these charges is more expensive than most small businesses are able to afford. This sort of procedure effectively opens the door to blackmail by trademark owners who want to sweep all similar domain names out the door. To effectively fight abuse of trademarks, new laws should instead target the source: those who warehouse names simply for the sake of profiting from them.

• Jim E. Salmon was sued in April, 1998 for improperly using "domain names" linking to porn sites. He bought domain names in 1996 for $100 each for two years' use. In 1998 he owned more than 400 other domain names, including those of John Wayne and Elizabeth Taylor. The controversy started after web users found that the Salmon-owned name of a famous country music star led to a website showing Hillary Clinton as a dominatrix tugging her husband's leash.

• Don Parisi has gained notoriety for a Web site similar to the White House site which offers nude pictures, raunchy cartoons, X-rated videos, and erotic stories. Parisi claims that the last site was a "parody" which was intended to alert people to the dangers of cybersquatting.

• According to University of Miami law professor Micheal Fromkin, "The most important effect of the [cybersquatting] law is on cases that are never going to be litigated... it's a recipe for intimidation. I doubt it was intended that way, but [that will be] the effect."

Associated Press; Associated Press; University of Miami Press