I've got to agree with Dr.T. on this one - dilution is such a serious issue for TM holders that they really have to defend the mark or risk losing its strength and becoming generic.

We are in a similar situation with The Evil Giraffe, even though we've been in business for over 5 years. Beat them in a UDRP/WIPO arbitration action, but are still tied-up in the USPTO TTAB.

Other thing might be that it isn't really Land's End going after the typo-squatters - it's the law firm(s) they hire that are tasked to do these things. They lay out a plan with the corporate counsel (some senior VP) and act on the plan - better than good chance the Land's End marketing types may not even be involved.

With diversion - it isn't a case that the potential customer eventually ended up at the Land's End site, it is the fact that they had to get there via the offending site - like, why should they pay for the visitor via the affiliate when they would have eventually ended up there anyway.

All the courts find it quite reasonable to expect that a customer who "typo's" a domain name will realize that and then correct the spelling once they don't arrive where they want to be. I'd have to agree. Typo-squatting sucks.

__________________
:not_the_usual1
[you decide]
________________
All in my opinion, which, when combined carefully with a $1 bill, gets you a cup of coffee at the corner store.