Deceptive Pornhub-Like URLs Don’t Have To Be Changed, Panel Rules

CYBERSPACE—The slightly misspelled URL—that is, internet address—remains one of the most widely seen techniques for internet scamming. Sometimes URLs will look nearly identical to the URL of a popular site, but with a single letter altered. In other cases, the main, or second level, domain name will be identical to a well-known site, but the top level domain will be different. For example, “.info” rather than “.com.” But in a surprising decision this week, the panel charged with resolving disputes over deceptive URLs declined to force a set of porn URLs to change, even though they appear clearly intended to trick users into believing they are linking to Pornhub, Redtube, or another site in the Mindgeek conglomerate. In 2013, ICANN—the agency that registers internet addresses—set up a new procedure called the Uniform Rapid Suspension System, designed to resolve disputes over similarly spelled, deceptive URLs. A board called the National Arbitration Panel was set up to hear all “URS” cases. According to the Domain Investing news site, the Luxembourg-based company Licensing IP International S.à r.l. filed a URS complaint with the panel. The firm owns the rights to the URLs for the Mindgeek sites, including Pornhub, YouPorn, RedTube and others. A number of other Mindgeek-connected firms are also registered in Luxembourg. Licensing IP International appeared to have a clear-cut case, complaining about such URLs as Pornhub.plus, Pornhubteen.top, Pornohub.bid, Redtube.bike, Redtube.ink, and others in the same vein. But that’s not the way the arbitration panel saw it. “The mere fact that the domain names incorporate Complainant’s marks and resolve to websites offering identical and/or similar services is not automatically sufficient” to prove that the URLs are not real porn sites, the panel said. In other words, if the links lead to actual porn sites, the use of names such as “pornhub” and “redtube” in URLs appears to be okay. The panel also rather incredibly ruled that “it is not evident from the records that Internet users would be misled into believing that the services offered through the disputed websites originate from Complainant.” In the end, the panel concluded that there was not enough evidence to rule that the copycat URLs were registered “in bad faith.” The lesson appears to be, for users, read URLs closely before clicking on them, because the panel set up to protect you from deception appears reluctant to do so. The decision may help explain why the URS dispute resolution system has not proven popular, with only 529 cases filed in the past three years. Photo By Quince Media / Wikimedia Commons