The author is clearly trying to manufacture a controversy to promote their political beliefs.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000...
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000...
Do you propose that everyone should behave as if they fear being taken to court for frivolous suits? Coca Cola has a specific bar to meet if their claims will succeed. They're entitled to exclusive use of the term as trade dress (they own trademarks around it) but they do not control every use of the word, especially in reference or outside their market.
So I'll ask: What do you think should happen in court?
That's the point of trademark lawsuits. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it.
But the domains are different. "Fuck you Comcast" is a message directed at Comcast. It doesn't modify the name and nobody could confuse it with Comcast. "Comcastroturf" is a play on Comcast's name. Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast.
> Anybody registering a domain such as this, regardless of content, would receive a similar letter.
So I provide one example showing how that's not true. Comcast sent a cease and desist claiming that Comcastroturf is "confusingly similar" to their trademark, and they mention both the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act, which are usually applied for a domain like "comcast2017.com".
> Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast.
I'm not sure about that: for instance, even when most Americans don't know Latin I don't think Comcast would have any valid legal claim against someone registering a domain such as "comcastestpessima.com".