Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft was a 2004 legal dispute between Microsoft and a Canadian Belmont High School student named Mike Rowe, who was 17, over the domain name "MikeRoweSoft.com".^[1] Microsoft argued that their trademark had been infringed because of the phonetic resemblance between "Microsoft" and "MikeRoweSoft".^[2]

The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community.^[3] A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation.^[4]

The domain name MikeRoweSoft.com was initially registered by Canadian student Mike Rowe in August 2003.^[1] Rowe set up the site as a part-time web design business, choosing the domain because of the phonetic pun by adding the word "soft" to the end of his name.^[6][7] Microsoft saw the name as trademark infringement because of its phonetic resemblance to their trademarked corporate name and demanded that he give up the domain.^[2][8] After receiving a letter from Microsoft's Canadian legal representatives Smart & Biggar on January 14, 2004, Rowe replied asking to be compensated for giving up the domain.^[5][9]

Microsoft offered to pay Rowe's out-of-pocket expenses of $10, the original cost of registering the domain name.^[10] Rowe countered asking instead for $10,000, later claiming that he did this because he was "mad at" Microsoft for their initial $10 offer.^[5] Microsoft declined the offer and sent a cease and desist letter spanning 25 pages. Microsoft accused Rowe of setting up the site in order to try to force them into a large financial settlement, a practice known as cybersquatting.^[1]

Rowe went to the press, creating publicity for the case and garnering support for his cause, including donations of over $6,000 and an offer of free advice from a lawyer.^[5][11] At one point Rowe was forced to take down his site after it was overwhelmed by around 250,000 page views over a period of twelve hours, only managing to get the site back up after changing to a service provider with a higher capacity.^[12] The case, portrayed as a David versus Goliath struggle by the media, characterized Microsoft in a negative light. The resulting bad publicity was later described as a "public-relations mess".^[11][13] The public showing of support that Rowe received was credited with "softening Microsoft's stance", leading to an eventual settlement.^[2]

In late January 2004, it was revealed that the two parties had come to an out-of-court settlement, with Microsoft taking control of the domain.^[14] In return Microsoft agreed to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred, including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com, a website now defunct.^[15] Additionally, Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network, an all-expenses-paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in Redmond, Washington, training for Microsoft certification and an Xbox with a selection of games.^[10] Following an online poll, Rowe donated most of his legal defense fund to Canuck Place, a hospice for terminally ill children, and used the remaining money for his future university education.^[16][17]

After settling the dispute with Microsoft, Rowe attempted to auction off the documentation he had received on the on-line auction site eBay, describing it as "a piece of Internet history".^[9] The materials included one copy of the original 25-page cease and desist letter, as well as an inch-thick WIPO book containing copies of trademarks, web pages and e-mails between him and Microsoft.^[9] The auction received more than half a million page views and bidding rose to more than $200,000.^[9] The high bids turned out to be fraudulent, and the auction was restricted to pre-approved bidders.^[9] After restarting from the reserve price of $500, the documents eventually sold for $1,037.^[18]

Microsoft later admitted that they may have been too aggressive in their defense of the "Microsoft" trademark.^[15][19] Following the case, it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light, or they would have risked weakening their trademark.^[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.^[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.^[19]

• Microsoft Corp. v. Shah
• Nissan Motors v. Nissan Computer