What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

The typo-squatter running "stackexchage.com" (note: no "n") puts the name "StackExchange" (WITH the "n") in a couple prominent places on their website. Are they violating Jeff and Joel's copyright/trademark/other intellectual property?

Here's a screenshot so that you don't have to visit their URL, artifically increasing its perceived value:

stackexchage.com

share|improve this question
2  
or stackxchange.com? –  YOU Apr 4 '11 at 3:07
4  
I bet they didn't even pay for that stock art. –  user27414 Apr 4 '11 at 3:10
2  
Of course, that cheesy stuff is available on all the free sites. Good point reminding everyone not to visit the site and encourage this crap. +1 for that. –  jmort253 Apr 4 '11 at 4:12
2  
From their "about us" page: "We've taken the confusion out of searching online, allowing you to find what you want in a timely manner"... riiight. –  VonC Apr 4 '11 at 5:35
1  
As far as I can tell, this is just a placeholder. The image-links are leading down to this: smartname.com/smartname –  Time Traveling Bobby Apr 4 '11 at 7:05

1 Answer 1

Their use of the "Stack Exchange" trademark is blatant trademark infringement since they're using an identical mark for Internet services. SE could initiate UDRP proceedings against whoever owns the parked domain.

share|improve this answer
    
Yeah that top left logo is certainly trademark infringement (assuming SE has the relevant trademarks...you guys do, right?) –  Ben Brocka Dec 19 '12 at 17:48
    
@BenBrocka: I don't think SE even needs a registered trademark for UDRP purposes, only if they actually intend to sue. –  Mechanical snail Dec 19 '12 at 17:50
    
I find it interesting that the UDRP rules suggest that the act has to have been done in "bad faith." Trademark holders deserve protection regardless of the squatter's motivations. –  Robert Harvey Dec 19 '12 at 17:56
2  
@RobertHarvey probably to reinforce protections like Parody; an identifiable parody does no harm as no one should be confused; typosquatting to drive advertising revenue is abusing confused users for profit –  Ben Brocka Dec 19 '12 at 18:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .