Top 10 Domain Name Stories of January 2011

Despite suffering from Domainer Flu, the .com gTLD of which is now owned by TuCows' YummyNames (thanks Bill Sweetman), we bring you the top 10 cybersquatting/domain name stores of January 2011:

1. Court allows Microsoft's Claims for Contributory Cybersquatting. The Western District of Washington confirmed this month that contributory cybersquatting does, in fact, exist. Microsoft asserted the contributory cybersquatting claim against Digispace Solutions and yMultimedia and alleged that those companies induced third parties to register domain names that contained or consisted of typosquats of Microsoft's trademarks.

2. John Zuccarini loses in court... again. Zuccarini filed a lawsuit against eNom, NameJet, Verisign, and Network Solutions after a court-appointed receiver failed to renew several domain domain names that were formerlly owned by Zuccarini, which included govermentgrants.com, usgoverment.com, and britian.com. These, and several other domain names, were awared to Office Depot after it sued Zuccarini, which in turn assigned them to DS Holdings to sell. As Domain Name Wire reports, the court noted, “Zuccarini has already wasted quite enough of the parties’ and this Court’s time and resources in responding to his frivolous claims."

3. VeriSign announces 4th Quarter Loss, Profits Up. VeriSign announced a 4th quarter loss of $40.5 million, due in part to a $109 million interest payment related to a special dividend. Despite this loss, domain sale and SSL certificate revenue was up 13% to $178.8 million.

4. Demand Media has successful IPO, opens at over $23 a share. Domain industry giant Demand Media's IPO was a successful event. Shares were up 40% before opening at over $23 a share, and the share price remained relatively consistent throughout January. Demand Media owns a large portfolio of domains, domain name registrar eNom, parking company HotKeys, and a part of NameJet. Domain Name Wire has some insight into how this may change the industry and lead to the acquisition of other registrars.

5. Google strikes back at content farms, may allow blocking of domain names. Potentially in response to Demand Media's IPO, Google has been rumored to be working on a new feature set that will allow end-users to block domain names from search results. This feature would be tailored towards the blocking of spam and content farms, such as Demand Media's eHow. For more on Google's algorithm change, read Matt Cutts' blog.

6. Oversee.net Acquires ShopWiki. Oversee.net has acquired ShopWiki, a network of shopping comparison websites. Oversee.net is the parent company of DomainSponsor, SnapNames, and Moniker. Domain Name Wire reports that ShopWiki.com receives over three million unique visitors per month.

7. New York Times buys dealbook.com from Frank Schilling, after it lost a UDRP proceeding for the name. Media giant New York Times has purchased dealbook.com from notable domainer Frank Schilling for an undisclosed price. Frank's Name Administration company won the UDRP on a laches defense--a defense that is very rarely recognized under the UDRP.

8. GoDaddy (and others) begin to heavily market the .co ccTLD. GoDaddy has begun to heavily market the .co ccTLD through an advertizing bliz that included a Super Bowl commercial. Other comanies, such as Overstock.com, have followed suit. Overstock.com has rebranded as O.Co, a domain that cost the company $350,000.

9. NameDrive receives undisclosed investment amount and reorganizes. Domain Name Wire reports that domain parking company NameDrive has received an undisclosed investment from BIP Invesment Partners S.A., which also holds investments in Key-Systems, EuroDNS, and Domain Invest. NameDrive says that it has sold over $10 million in domains through its NDX market since 2008. 

10. Over 200 sickened at DomainFest 2011. Media outlets are now reporting that over 200 individuals have been struck by an unknown sickness following their attendance at DomainFest 2011 and the subsequent afterparty sponsored by DomainSponsor, which was held at the Playboy Mansion. The cause is yet to be determined, but some have speculated that it may be Pontiac Fever, a respiratory infection caused by the same Legionalla bacteria responsible for Legionnaires disease. We hope that this incident will not overshadow the otherwise best DomainFest yet, and we hope to see all of our friends and collegues again at DomainFest 2012.

Eric Goldman Interview: Domain Name Exceptionalism - Is Special Treatment Warranted (Part 2)

Eric Goldman is an Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law. He also directs the school's High Tech Law Institute. Before joining the SCU faculty in 2006, he was an Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School, General Counsel of Epinions.com, and an Internet transactional attorney at Cooley Godward LLP. Eric teaches Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility.   Eric's research focuses on Internet law, intellectual property, marketing, and the legal and social implications of new communication technologies. Recent papers have addressed topics such as search engines and online marketing practices.

Eric runs two popular blogs Tech & Marketing Blog & Goldman's Observations Blog. Part 1 of Eric Golman's interview can be found here.

ANNOUNCER: Today’s program is brought to you by Traverse Legal. A law firm specializing in internet law, domain disputes, intellectual property and technology company representation. That’s Traverse Legal www.traverselegal.com. Welcome to the Vertio Talk Radio tech spotlight with your host Damien Allen.

 

Professor Eric Goldman on Domain Name Exceptionalism - Is Special Treatment Warranted? (Part 1)

Eric Goldman is an Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law. He also directs the school's High Tech Law Institute. Before joining the SCU faculty in 2006, he was an Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School, General Counsel of Epinions.com, and an Internet transactional attorney at Cooley Godward LLP. Eric teaches Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility.   Eric's research focuses on Internet law, intellectual property, marketing, and the legal and social implications of new communication technologies. Recent papers have addressed topics such as search engines and online marketing practices.

Eric runs two popular blogs Tech & Marketing Blog & Goldman's Observations Blog.

 

Play: Domain Name Exceptionalism - Is Special Treatment Warranted? (part 1)
(click title to listen)

With: Eric Goldman

Sponsored by: Traverse Legal, PLC

---

Read Transcript:

Publish to My Site

Share on My Networks

---

powered by Vertio.net

Domain Name Disputes Handled By WIPO Continue To Rise

DN Journal just noted that WIPO disputes have continued to increase over the past five years, linking to an article at pingdom.com.  Pingdom notes that domain disputes have doubled since 2003 and that the United States is the origin of most of the domain name disputes handled by WIPO.  Forty percent of the defendants are U.S.-based, despite the fact that the U.S. only has 15% of the world’s internet population.  Here is the chart posted on Pingdom.

S. 2661 is a Fox in Sheep’s Clothing? Why Call it an Anti-Phishing Bill When It Is Also A Trademark Bill?

Chuck Kisselburg at the ICANNblog makes a good point about he so-called Anti-Phishing Bill, Senate Bill 2661. While the bill is not close to becoming a law at this juncture, Chuck correctly notes that "the bill feels like a fox in sheep’s clothing as the bill’s name suggests a bill against anti-phishing. Instead the bill not only discusses anti-phishing but seems to be based around the use, or misuse of domain names."

More Cybersquatted Domain Names for Your Buck With One UDRP Complaint

Rule 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy states, “The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.”  This means that if a trademark owner’s business is being harmed by multiple unrelated cybersquatters, she must file one complaint against each registrant.  What if you have a popular trademark and/or domain name (which usually coincides with a popular product or service) that you believe is being cybersquatted by numerous domain name registrants?  Based upon the number of UDRP Complaints that name only one domain, most Complainants, and even their attorneys, believe you have to file one Complaint against each domain name registrant.

Win or Lose: The UDRP Is Not Your Only Option When It Comes to Domain Names

While the UDRP is an efficient and relatively cost-effective mechanism by which a trademark owner can acquire a domain from a cybersquatter, it is not the only option.  This is especially true since the proofs needed to win a UDRP are not the same as those required to win an ACPA federal lawsuit, although similar.  If your UDRP Complaint requesting that the domain name be transferred is denied, you can still pursue an ACPA lawsuit for cybersquatting, as long as you do so within the applicable statute of limitations.   

Should you be on the receiving end of a UDRP Complaint and lose, you have rights that may be worth pursuing.  However, you do need to know that if you lose, you must file a lawsuit in a court of law to stay, or prevent, the domain name from being transferred to the Complainant that prevailed under the UDRP.

The UDRP is a form of adjudication, but as the below excerpt from a known case makes clear, it is no court of law. 

Bounty Hunters to Track Down Cybersquatters?

Rick Schwartz has been warning other domainers for some time about the dangers that lurk ahead.  One lawyer at Out-law.com is proposing that trademark holders band together to track down and police cybersquatters worldwide.  This effort would be funded by large global corporations. 

John Mackenzie, an intellectual property and technology law expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that businesses should band together to tackle the multi-million dollar cybersquatting industry pro-actively.

"What is really needed and what may occur is a trade organization pushing a policing function whose only purpose is to chase these people," said Mackenzie, saying that it could be similar to business-funded copyright protection groups such as the Business Software Alliance.

"Brands have no choice," he said. "This is turning from the opportunistic registration of domains with people making small amounts of money in garden shed operations into activity from highly sophisticated organizations who are operating around the world."

Essentially, what is being proposed here is a common fund to bring cybersquatters into court in order to sue for damages, as opposed to the limited relief of domain transfer allowed under the UDRP and similar policies.

UDRP: Lack of Use of a Domain is NOT Always a Defense

The mere holding of an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith under the UDRP.  Despite this, all too often trademark owners watch as domains are registered that incorporate their trademark.  Unfortunately for the trademark owner, they think costly litigation under the ACPA is the only means of redress for what appears to be clear cybersquatting.  While the UDRP is cost effective and efficient, there is a general understanding (or more appropriately misunderstanding) that there must be a use of the domain name in order to file a UDRP complaint and win the UDRP.  In fact, the rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, states that the domain name must have been registered in bad faith and used in bad faith to satisfy the policy.  Registration in bad faith was, and continues to be perceived by some, as not enough.  That said, recent panels have held that a Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the web site, such as merely parking the web site with a web hosting company, is enough to satisfy bad faith registration and use under policy paragraph 4(a)(3).

Dell Lawsuit Exposes the Seedy Side of Domaining and Domain Monetization

Follow the Latest Developments In The Dell Typosquatting / ACPA Lawsuit Here.

At the heart of the Dell ACPA cybersquatting lawsuit is the concept of the now highly controversial Add Grace Period (AGP) implemented by ICANN, which is  the technological and policy foundation of domain tasting.  A Grace Period refers to a specified number of calendar days following a Registry operation in which a domain action may be reversed and a credit may be issued to a registrar. AGP is typically the five day period following the initial registration of a domain name. AGP appears as a contractual term in some, but not all gTLD registry agreements.

AGP was implemented for consumers to correct of typos and other errors by registrants. Once a domain name is deleted by the registry at this stage, it is immediately available for registration by any registrant through any registrar. When a domain name is registered through an ICANN accredited registrar, that registrar may cancel the domain name at any time during the first five calendar days of the registration and receive a full credit for the registration fee from the registry.

Few companies have publicly taken on the serious serious issues of cybersquatting and the policies of ICANN which create and support the practice of domain tasting, a commercial activity which has little if any legitimate justification in cyberspace. Few companies have the financial ability to take these matters to court and expose the seedy practices of cybersquatting, typosquatting and domain tasting. In many instances, the defendants are hard to locate or even identify, making the possibility of collecting damages remote.

In the Dell lawsuit, it is alleged that the defendants set up a network that cycled infringing domain names from one registrar to the next in order to hold onto the domains indefinitely without ever paying for them, all the while profiting from pay-per-click ads on the sites that often served visitors with ads for Dell's competitors.  These allegations suggest one of the most obvious examples of intentional bad faith cybersquatting. Unfortunately, this level of cyber and typosquatting is not only common, but rampant on the world wide web today.

These blatant squatters are also difficult to coral.  Because of private registration, it is often difficult to identify the registrant behind a particular domain registration. Even if the registrant is identified, the more sophisticated squatters use offshore companies to The complaint further charges that the registrars created and controlled a series of shell corporations in the Bahamas to act as the entities registering the domains, including Caribbean Online International, Domain Drop S.A., Domibot, Highlands International Investment, Keyword Marketing Inc., Maison Tropicale, Marketing Total S.A, Click Cons Ltd., Wan-Fu China Ltd. and Web Advertising Corp.