Because most domain name registries (including NZ's own Domainz) operate a first-come, first-served policy and make no attempt to check or enforce trademark issues, it's pretty simple for someone to snap up a domain name that might infringe the intellectual property rights of others.

More recently however, cybsersquatters who thought they might make a quick dollar by registering someone else's trademark as a domain name have come unstuck because the dispute process has become a whole lot simpler and more sympathetic to the trademark holder.

As a result we've seen a spate of cybersquatters forced to hand over names they have registered in an attempt to hold others to ransom or pass themselves off as someone they weren't.

Readers Say (updated hourly) waikato website... - Jason Waikato Rugby... - Tony From Yesterday IE vs netscape... - Andrew IE5 security vs Mickey Mouse... - Rob Have Your Say

This sounds like a good thing right?

Yeah... most of the time it is -- but unfortunately it seems that some rather dim-witted organisations seem to have the idea that any domain that might be remotely related to their business but which is owned by another is fair game for complaint and threats of legal action.

Take the example of waikatorugby.co.nz -- a simple site that offers free email addresses @waikatorugby.co.nz.

Now -- "Waikato Rugby" sounds like a pretty descriptive and generic name to me -- but no, the Waikato Rugby Union (WRU) believe that they own the exclusive right to those two words and that it's a domain name which (despite the clear disclaimer) will confuse people into thinking the website is owned or affiliated in some way to the WRU themselves.

If I were a Waikato Rugby Union fan or member I'd be pretty insulted by this slur on my intelligence and powers of observation -- possibly even considering it defamatory -- but hey, I'm just an Internet commentator so what do I know?

Well the WRU have poked their lawyers with a sharp stick and had a letter sent to the registered users of the domain name in question on their behalf. The letter accuses the operators of breaching the Fair Trading Act, deceiving the public and the unauthorised use of the words "Waikato Rugby" as part of a web address.

Oh please!

These lawyers tout themselves as "specialists in intellectual property law" but I think that in this instance they're just acting like a bunch of bullies. Anyone could be forgiven for perhaps drawing the conclusion that they're simply trying to get the registered owners of waikatorugby.co.nz to hand over their domain name to the WRU under duress rather than pursuing a genuine cybersquatter who seeks to pass themselves off as the WRU.

Pot, Kettle, Black? As one alert Aardvark reader has pointed out -- the Lawyers acting for the WRU use the domain name jaws.co.nz for their website -- yet "Jaws" is a trademark of Universal Studios. Are they passing off? Will this confuse fans of the movie Jaws? Will it confuse members of the WRU? Well the lawyers' website displays a rather menacing fish with with prominent teeth on its front page. Is this a case of "do as we say not do as we do?"

Let's face it -- if the WRU was really interested in preserving their branding and "reputation" on the Internet then they would have something more to show than the "oops" page which exists at the domain waikatorugbyunion.co.nz and which appears to be registered to Wave Internet Services. Likewise I would have expected them to register wru.co.nz which presently remains unclaimed.

Now that the operators of the waikatorugby.co.nz website have placed their disclaimer in a more prominent place I think that the WRU's lawyers are drawing a very long bow on this one and run the risk of shooting themselves in the foot at great expense to the client.

I wonder if it had every occurred to the WRU to contact these people and ask nicely if there was some way that they could work together to eliminate any remote possibility of confusion over this domain. Hell, who knows, it might even have been a good place to be linked from if the WRU ever get around to building their own website instead of just bullying the owners of other sites.

And hey -- don't they play Rugby League in Waikato? I wonder what they call it -- after all, with the WRU claiming ownership of "Waikato Rugby" I guess they can't use the descriptive phrase "Waikato Rugby League" or they'd get their arse sued off. Plus, if the WRU's lawyers are to be believed, the Union supporters would be so confused that they wouldn't know which sports ground to go to -- right?

What do you think -- is this a case of blatant cybersquatting or are the WRU and their lawyers simply engaging in a little offensive play?

As always, your feedback is welcomed.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!