Domain-Name Error Redirect

i. An agreement with an ISP designating which key words would turn up pages showing the trademark owner's ads and nobody else's, and which would turn up pages without the owner's ads. This arrangement would be effective only when trademark claimants and/or domainers compensate the ISP for filtering ads.

ii. From the perspective of trademark claimants, the viability of the incentive depends on the difference between the value of the damage to the trademark owner and the cost to the ISP.11 If brand damage can be reduced by more than an acceptable compensation to the ISP, then such an incentive scheme will be effective. Nevertheless, the trademark claimant incurs additional costs: the need to make such arrangements with multiple ISPs, as well as administrative costs that must not be left out of consideration. To decrease monitoring and operating costs, an intermediary can leverage relationships across ISPs and trademark holders.

For the domainer, the arrangement is viable when the revenue outweighs the expected cost of legal action, a balance that is not easy to calculate.

iii. Microsoft controls which page is served when there is an error in Internet Explorer's address input. With Google tool bar added to the browser, you are redirected to a page rendered by Google. The top of the page suggests an input correction by asking "Did you mean %u2026" Nevertheless, the page also has ads. Some PC manufacturers have made agreements with Microsoft to redirect the error to a page with ads supplied by the PC manufacturer. These ads are typically supplied by ad agencies such as Google and Yahoo.

Microsoft makes money from clicks on the ads. Thus, it's a real problem in foregone revenue for the company when users are served irritating content, since some may drop Internet Explorer browser. when the ISP ads and the advertisers are on different ad networks, there is no chance of overlapping ads and the conflict does not arise. An example would be if the ISP were using Yahoo and the advertiser were using Google.

iv. In the case of ad exclusivity, the cost includes forgoing revenue from other advertisers. In practice, of course, many people stick with what they have, whether because they don't like change, they doubt that another browser will be any different, or they work for a company whose IT department dictates the browser its employees use. As the PC manufacturers seem not to be concerned about the legality of their action, their incentives to change behavior lie with browser developers, Microsoft, and the ad agencies.

v. An alternative to serving ads, the browser can be set up to check if any of the user's previously visited sites are related to the key word or the domain name entered in the browser. Thus, in principle, the browser's developer can make money from information on users' surfing habits. However, privacy issues will probably prevent the implementation of such a service.

Advertiser level

* Instead of filtering the ads, Google, for example, gives advertisers the option to select which sites not to display their ads on. However, this can be a disadvantage for parking in general if advertisers opt not to use any parked domain name. On the other hand, being selective domain-by-domain may not be cost effective.
* The ad agency can place restrictions on the type of works that can and cannot be used.
* Courts can force advertisers to use "negative key words."

Publisher level

* An ad agency's incentives to develop a filtering technology are primarily driven by two potential benefits: operating profits and strategic profits. The first is when operating revenue is greater than operating cost. Given that ad agencies have so far escaped trademark issues, their revenue comes from click-on ads. Thus, the lack of filtering may lead some advertisers to flee to a competitors network. However, Google is now the dominant player in the text-based ad

Advertisers/TM claimants

a. Adopt a cooperative carrot-and-stick regime with domainers that benefits both parties.

b. Take legal action against domain owners.

c. Use an online identity protection service to monitor and resolve any potential infringements.