Cyber-squatting
By: Atty. Rey Christian M. Guintibano on October 23,2025
IN today’s digital age, website names are more than labels, they are digital assets. The act of taking advantage of another person’s name, brand or reputation by registering similar web addresses is known as cybersquatting.
Under Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cybersquatting refers to “the acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation or deprive others from registering the same.” The law penalizes those who register a domain name that is:
- Similar, identical or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration.
- Identical or similar to the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name.
- Acquired without right or without any intellectual property interest in it.
The penalty for cybersquatting is imprisonment of prision mayor (six years and one day up to 12 years) or a fine of at least P200,000, up to an amount commensurate to the damage incurred, or both. If committed against critical infrastructure, or those systems so vital that their disruption would severely affect national security, economy or public safety, the penalty is reclusion temporal (12 years and one day up to 20 years) or a fine of at least P500,000, or both.
In 2021, ABS-CBN won a lawsuit in the United States against several illegal websites that streamed its copyrighted content under The Filipino Channel without authorization. One of the websites, “thefilipinochannel.su,” was ordered to pay damages for cybersquatting, as its domain name was confusingly similar to ABS-CBN’s registered trademark.
A similar case could easily happen in the Philippines. Imagine a legitimate lending corporation called “RCMG Finance Corporation” with an official website, www.rcmgfinance.com. A malicious actor could register www.rcmgfinanceph.com, create a fake online loan application portal and collect “processing fees” from unsuspecting borrowers. Because the fake website bears a nearly identical name and layout, customers could easily mistake it for the real company and unwittingly send money to scammers.
Element of bad faith
A critical element in cybersquatting is bad faith. The law does not penalize the mere registration of a domain name that happens to resemble another’s name or trademark. What makes it criminal is the registrant’s malicious intent to mislead, destroy reputation or profit from confusion.
This was clarified in the landmark case of Disini v. Secretary of Justice (GR 203335, Feb. 8, 2014), where petitioners challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, including cybersquatting.
Petitioners argued that Section 4(a)(6) violates the equal protection clause, claiming that the law could penalize individuals who innocently register a domain name identical to their real name, or who use a name in satire or parody. They illustrated this with an example: if there were a billionaire named “Julio Gandolfo,” another person with the same name could be punished for registering that domain even if he merely used his real name.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and ruled that “there is no real difference whether he uses ‘Julio Gandolfo’ which happens to be his real name or use it as a pseudonym, for it is the evil purpose for which he uses the name that the law condemns.” The court emphasized that what the law punishes is the bad faith attending the registration, not the mere similarity of names.
Filing a complaint
Victims of cybersquatting or any other offense under the Cybercrime Prevention Act may seek assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation or the Philippine National Police, both of which have dedicated cybercrime units.
Victims may also seek assistance from the Department of Justice-Office of Cybercrime, or the Cybercrime Operations Center of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. Under the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, these agencies are authorized to act as the competent authority for investigations and proceedings concerning cybercrimes, provide legal or technical advice, act on complaints and cause the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes, among others.
Cybersquatting provisions under the Cybercrime Prevention Act are designed to preserve fairness and accountability in the online domain. In a digital economy where identity and reputation are currency, the law ensures that no one can unjustly appropriate another’s name, trademark or goodwill.
Rey Christian M. Guintibano is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on October 23,2025. Please see this link.