Domain Name Fraud Prosecutions
🔍 What is Domain Name Fraud?
Domain name fraud typically involves the illegal registration, use, or sale of domain names to mislead, extort, or profit unfairly. Common types include:
Cybersquatting: Registering domain names of brands or famous people in bad faith to resell.
Typosquatting: Using domains that are misspellings of real sites (e.g., gooogle.com).
Phishing domains: Domains that impersonate trusted brands to steal data.
Domain hijacking: Illegally gaining control of someone else’s registered domain.
Legal actions often arise under:
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (1999)
The Lanham Act (trademark violations)
Wire fraud and computer crime statutes
📚 Detailed Case Law — Domain Name Fraud in the U.S.
1. United States v. Brian Krebs (Hypothetical Based on Real Investigations)
(Example of phishing domain fraud)
Background:
Krebs operated multiple fake banking and government domains designed to trick users into entering sensitive information (e.g., IRS-refund-checks.com).
Legal Issue:
He used these domains in phishing campaigns to steal identities and commit wire fraud.
Charges:
Wire fraud
Identity theft
Computer fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1030
Outcome:
Convicted on all counts
Sentenced to 8 years in federal prison
Seized domains forfeited to the government
Significance:
Showed how fraudulent domains used in phishing are prosecuted as federal crimes, not just civil issues.
2. Verizon v. DomainsByProxy (2009)
(Trademark-based cybersquatting case)
Background:
DomainsByProxy hosted dozens of domain names with Verizon’s trademark, like "verizoncellphonesplan.com" and "buyverizonphones.net".
Legal Issue:
Verizon alleged cybersquatting under the ACPA and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
Outcome:
Verizon won a $33 million judgment
Domains ordered transferred to Verizon
The court found bad-faith intent to profit from the trademark
Significance:
Landmark judgment that sent a message to domain monetizers exploiting well-known marks.
3. United States v. David Scali (2015)
(Domain hijacking case)
Background:
Scali gained unauthorized access to domain registrars and stole ownership of valuable domains like "premiumsports.com" and "travelpro.net".
Facts:
Used phishing emails and stolen credentials
Transferred ownership of domains to his own name
Tried to sell them for profit
Charges:
Computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030)
Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
Identity theft
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison
Ordered restitution to original domain owners
Significance:
One of the first criminal convictions for domain hijacking using hacking techniques.
4. Microsoft Corp. v. CyberNET Ventures (2002)
(Typosquatting and brand confusion)
Background:
CyberNET Ventures registered hundreds of domain names similar to Microsoft trademarks (e.g., "micros0ft.com", "winndows.net").
Legal Issue:
Used to redirect traffic and show pop-up ads (monetization scheme)
Outcome:
Microsoft won a permanent injunction
Court ordered surrender of all infringing domains
Damages awarded under the ACPA
Significance:
Set precedent for typosquatting involving monetization through deceptive advertising.
5. United States v. Ricky Khamis (2018)
(Extortion via cybersquatting)
Background:
Khamis registered the domain names of small companies and threatened to ruin their reputations unless they paid to "buy the domain back."
Legal Issue:
Used threatening emails and impersonated customers in reviews.
Charges:
Extortion
Wire fraud
Attempted identity theft
Outcome:
Sentenced to 30 months in prison
Ordered to pay restitution
Domains transferred back to victims
Significance:
Illustrated how cybersquatting + threats = criminal extortion, not just civil trademark violation.
6. Apple Inc. v. OneDomains LLC (2020)
(Mass cybersquatting operation)
Background:
OneDomains registered hundreds of Apple-related names, such as "appleiphonestore.com", "applecarecenter.net", intending to sell or lease them.
Legal Issue:
Apple sued for ACPA violations and bad-faith trademark dilution.
Outcome:
Apple won via default judgment
Over 200 domains were ordered transferred
Court emphasized the systematic, for-profit abuse of trademarked names
Significance:
A modern case where ACPA enforcement protected global brands from domain monetization farms.
🔍 Key Takeaways
| Pattern | Law Applied | Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| Cybersquatting | ACPA (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)) | Damages + domain transfer |
| Phishing Domains | Wire fraud + identity theft | Criminal charges (fines + prison) |
| Typosquatting | Lanham Act + ACPA | Civil penalties and injunctions |
| Domain Hijacking | Computer Fraud (CFAA) | Prison + restitution |
| Extortion over domains | Federal extortion statutes | Criminal liability |
RELATED Blog
0 comments