I find these letters depressing. These are the kind of letters that cause people to hate lawyers.

Notice of the problem and the trademark holders’ intent to file a claim are required by the [Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act], but the tone of these letters is not. Instead of nicely explaining what the law is, what the goal is and how appreciative the trademark holder would be if the domain name holder was courteous enough to transfer the name as requested, these letters bombard the recipients with legal jargon and serious threats without context or explanation. …

When I have a client on either side of the cybersquatting scenario, I urge starting with the polite request approach. Usually, I can succeed that way through some polite explanation of the law over the phone and a little patience. That approach also costs my clients less that either court or arbitration would since both of those require filing fees and lengthy legal briefs. More importantly, solving disputes through discussion makes me feel good and helps me prove that, at least occasionally, lawyers can act like human beings and make someone’s day instead of ruining it.

(Judith Silver, Cybersquatting Ain’t What It Used To Be).

Filed under: arbitration, nastygrams, technology, trademarks