“The WIPO arbiter said that the company’s explanations about the donkey websites were basically ridiculous and not the whole story; the idea that someone with 100,000 websites is suddenly going to turn jackass.com into a REALLY USEFUL SITE about donkeys after being hauled before WIPO borders on the ludicrous.”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/wipo-jackasscom-an-owner-a-real-jackass-but-can-keep-site.ars#comments

In this case it seems like FMA is typosquatter. When someone “registers variants of popular trademarked names, a practice known as typosquatting.”

It could be purely a coincidence, but I’m formed my opinion based on what I’ve read from another article.

How did you conclude that FMA is a cybersquatter? And let me correct your definition of cybersquatting; according to wikipedia:

“Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.”

Please note that FMA owns the domain name AND its trademark, that and FMA has never sold any domain name. So basically, FMA doesn’t satisfy neither of the two conditions of a cybersquatter. Please understand the definitions before you use them and accuse FMA of cybersquatting.

FMA won this case for two reasons: 1) It owns the ‘Jackass’ trademark and that gives it rights to the domain name as much as Viacom. FMA claimed the domain first and that’s Viacom’s problem, if they thought the domain name should belong to them why didn’t they register it 9 years ago? 2) ‘Jackass’ is a generic dictionary-word and that alone is enough to deny any claims to own the domain name.

FMA’s business is clean and is not against the law in anyway, and none of its domain names would classify the company as a cybersquatter. Again, please do not accuse a company of such an illegal action when you clearly lack the correct definition of it.

Oh really? Where is that noted, or is that your analysis?

Also, it sounds like you don’t know the definition of a cybersquatter.