A company called USpeakWeType Technologies purchased dnhour.com from Koay Al Vin for $3,200 at the SEDO auction which concluded two weeks ago. USpeak also owns overflowlegal.com, another Digg-Style site for law. The domain name itself - dnhour -was not worth much, but the web site boasted solid traffic, Page Rank 4 and over 2,000 registered users. The site stacks up well against domaining.com, dnjournal.com and conceptualist.com. We have the inside story below ...
Continue reading "Who spent $3,200 for the domain and developed web site DNHour.com & why? We know the answer ...." »
A Circuit Court judge in Kentucky ordered the transfer of 141 domain names to the Commonwealth of Kentucky from the registrant owners that use the domain names to resolve to illegal Internet gambling sites. According to a press release issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky is the first state to pursue action against gambling websites that has resulted in the seizure of domain names. Kentucky is attempting to force illegal online casino operators to use technology to block access to the domains, and thus the gambling, from within Kentucky. Kentucky law mandates the forfeiture of any “gambling devices,” including domain names and the corresponding websites used for online gambling, since unlicensed gambling is illegal within the Commonwealth. Governor Beshear believes that gambling deprives the Commonwealth of revenue and endangers its citizens.
This action by Kentucky clearly raises a number of questions related to the use of domain names for online gambling, or any other activity that a state may deem illegal. Not only does this affect online gaming operators within the United States, but it also affects other countries. Regardless, United States entities must now be aware of the laws in individual states, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky in order to ensure their online operation, especially as it relates to gambling, is permitted.
Failure to understand the laws and implement the necessary technological controls could lead to, as here, the forfeiture of the valuable domain name.
As if the tragedy were not enough for the responsible party, it appears cybersquatters immediately prey upon the publicity that surrounds a mass accident. Case in point, the recent Metrolink train accident that caused several deaths and numerous injuries has apparently created revenue opportunities for cybersquatters. For example, the domain name metrolinktrain.com now resolves to a parking page in an effort generate pay-per-click revenue for the registrant. It is highly doubtful that Metrolink, whose official website is housed at metrolinktrains.com, has authorized this domain registration or use of its trademark as part of this domain name. The same could be said for metrolink.com, a domain that the Southern California Regional Rail Authority should never have allowed to be registered by, let alone retained by, a cybersquatter. Simply put, cybersquatters see opportunity to capitalize off of this tragedy, and similar ones, knowing full well that Internet users will be searching for this news.
Continue reading "Cybersquatting on Domain Names Following Mass Tort Accidents " »
UDRP Decision Discusses Privacy Services and Bad Faith « The Legal Satyricon
The majority of the Panel also finds that the use of a privacy shield in this case further supports its finding of bad faith registration. Although privacy shields might be legitimate in some cases – such as protecting the identity of a critic against reprisal – it is difficult to see why a PPC advertiser needs to protect its identity except to frustrate the purposes of the Policy or make it difficult for a brand owner to protect its trademarks against infringement, dilution and cybersquatting. In circumstances like this, the privacy shield may also allow registrants to transfer domain name registrations amongst themselves without any public record that there has been a transfer, thus allowing them to evade enforcement of legitimate third-party rights or to obstruct proceedings commenced under the Policy...
Alex Tajirian has an interesting post on CircleID about an issue which is getting lots of attention over the last 24 hours. Andrew Allemann wrote an editorial yesterdaytitled "How the Domain Industry Can Clean Itself Up" which we followed up on in a post "Do Domainers Deserve Their Repuation As Cybersquatters Because They Fail To Police Their Own?" Allen's post drew a lot of commentary, mostly supporting the prposition that it is time to step-up the self-policing of cybersquattign by the domain community. Alex Tajirian's post (coincidentially I think) analyzes the legal proceedings related to Napster, conlcudes that lawyers can not stop illigal practices on-line and provides specific ideas on how the community should self-police agasint domain name trademark abuse and on-line brand protection.
Domain Name Lessons from Napster
What can be done?
The domain name industry should get the message out to Internet users and brand owners that:
1. Indiscriminate legal action exasperates the problems associated with the use of brands in domain names.
2. A solution cannot come only from the side of the domain name industry; a cooperative solution is imperative.
The domain name industry is serious about fighting illegal use of brands in domain names.
How should our industry react?
1. Initiate media campaigns.
2. Openly discuss solutions in domain name conferences, as they are also attended by the media and brand owners.
3. Lobby Congress through the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) and domainer activism.
4. Discuss the problem and possible solutions in domain name forums and other relevant forums.
5. Take action against current monetizers that continue sponsoring obvious domain name violations. Here are some comments from Andrew's DomainNameWire post. - Sign me up…..I just put pressure on Godaddy yesterday by speaking to one of their “Quality Control” reps that wanted my opinion on Godaddy and TDNAM.
- Well done Andrew. Every VERY obvious TM infringing opportunity I find, I call the company’s legal department ask to speak to their IP lawyers and tell them about the obvious names that obviously infringe on THEIR intellectual property.
- I actually got a bit flush and panicky when I saw the Mozzilla.com sale. I felt a bit sick too. I was initially irritated that Ron listed it, but quickly got my wits about me - as he is just reporting these sales.
- Call the TM infringers on it. It’s wrong. It can’t be defended. And anyone with a modicum of good sense will not infringe on another’s trademark.
- I think a lot of people use the argument that companies shouldn’t police trademark sales on their auction sites because it’s difficult to “draw the line” between a real trademark and a bogus claim.
Technorati Tags: cybersquatting, brand, trademark, UDRP, ACPA
Domain Name Wire has a great post noting that Domainers often want to have it both ways. They 'cry foul' about the fact that many people see the business model of domain monetization, and especially parking pages, as unsavory. Domainers try to distinguish the 'white hats' from 'black hats.' But too often, people in the industry look the other way when domainers broker in squatted domains. Does the industry need to start more aggressively monitoring its own?
Domain Name Wire » News » Editorial: How the Domain Industry Can Clean Itself Up - The Domain Industry's News Source Earlier today I read DNJournal’s weekly sales recap. There were some good sales, including RoomDividers.com at $75,000 (congratulations, Rick). But all of the good sales were overshadowed by a couple bad sales: Mozzilla.com for $40,000 and wwwMatch.com at $11,100.
Neither of these domain names would stand a chance in UDRP challenges. Both of them are typos of famous web sites. These are the types of domain sales that make the industry look bad.
To make matters worse, Mozzilla.com was sold on DNForum, a respected domain name forum. What signal does it send that domainers are trading trademark typos on a major forum? (It’s not just DNForum, mind you.) Mozzilla.com used to make money from affiliate links for downloading the Google toolbar with Firefox. Now it has a link to download Firefox, but when you click on the link it sends you to various offers such as other toolbars and registry cleaner software.
Technorati Tags: domain names, cybersquatting, mozilla
|
|
|
Traverse Legal, PLC | 810 Cottageview Dr., G20, Traverse City, MI, 49684
(West Coast Office) 16830 Ventura Boulevard Suite 358, Los Angeles (Encino), CA 91436-1707
Maryland Office: 22776 Three Notch Rd. ,Suite 201, Lexington Park, MD.
231-932-0411 (phone) | 866-936-7447 (toll free) | 231-932-0636 (fax)
|
|
Recent Comments