Again, that's how it's supposed work though. If I pay for 10 years for my domain name, I don't want it to stop working because evilCorp makes a request to take it over (for whatever reason). If I am ruining the internet with a nefarious use of my domain, then it should be easy enough to prove to a valid court, and then there should be a legit way to take over control. It shouldn't be impossible, but it shouldn't be a cake walk either.

A court from what country?

Whichever country the registrar associated with that domain is currently in?

Indeed, it's a difficult question. But we should rather be asking, why isn't there better cooperation to catch cyber-criminals across borders?

Maybe because some governments are directly involved in the cyber crime?

Some? More like basically all.

What's a crime in my country is not necessarily a crime in yours. And international law without extradition backing it is at best a suggestion.

Absolutely, especially in terms of copyright and liability (of open computer systems, e.g. Germany's open WiFi nonsense).

But in some cases good enough proof of unauthorised compromise of computer systems can be collected, in those cases, why isn't there any cooperation? E.g. botnet makers.

What type of heuristic can capture "these kind of website names"? There are too many possibilities.

Some companies have registered misspellings and openly hostile domain names similar to their trademark, but it's hard to consider all permutations e.g. https://bankofamericasucks.com redirects to Coin Wallet.

Trademark law, as far as I understand, is to prevent customer confusion. Customers should be able to trust their intuition on who made a given product.

Misspellings should be covered. But hostile uses should not.

Please define "hostile uses" in a way that can be interpreted by law enforcement and the courts.

If I register "facebook-sucks.com" and put a disclaimer that facebook is a registered trademark of Facebook Inc etc etc then I'm not attempting to confuse customers of facebook (btw, do "users" of facebook = "customers" of facebook?).

Therefore there is no trademark infringement and no cause for me to cease and desist.

That's different to registering "faceb00k.com" and trying to pass my site off as being facebook. That's exactly what trademark rights are there to protect. It's not the registering of the domain that is the infringement, it's the attempt to pass off my site as being facebook's. In that case, a court can order me to take down my content, and if "me" is not identifiable, then they can order my hosting provider to do the same.

Facebook itself has numerous different domains registered and its not known that some of them are facebook's registrations.

What goes under “hostile uses”? Would people be confused if I made “facebook-sucks.com”? Because if you let something like this through, Facebook has an incentive to go after things like that…

I did a bit of research on this when I started killedbygoogle.com . It’s fine to use a trademark when it is being used for criticism, parody, or other creative work. It’s not okay to use for impersonation, fraud, or other commercial purposes that mislead consumers to believe an endorsement or association with the trademark’s owner.

Trademark law is to prevent "damage" to brands, not protect customers. If a system was in place to protect the customers, it would be the customers who were deceived that sue and receive compensation, not the company owning the trademark.