A flooring company, insurance provider and payments business bought domain names.
I don’t have many end user sales to report at Sedo from the past week. This isn’t due to a lack of sales; a higher-than-usual number are still in escrow. Next week I’ll go back and recheck the domains to add them to the list.
This week’s list also includes one from the previous week that cleared escrow.
Here are recent domain name purchases from the past week at Sedo:
(You can view previous lists like this here. If you’d like to learn how to sell your domain names like these on Sedo, download this report.)
SecuPay.com €15,000 – secupay AG is an online payments company in Germany. It uses the domain name SecurePay.ag.
Influence360.com $8,000 – Connie Dieken’s tagline is “Transforming leaders into influencers.”
Fantaland.com €4,500 – Fantaland is either an individual horse or a type of horse. The whois record uses an admin email address for someone in Italy, who is pictured with a horse.
Empire.asia $4,600 – Empire Asia Intenational Sdn Bhd. in Kuala LUmpur.
CasaMi.com $4,000 – The owner of WithMi.com bought this domain name. The company offers a few services all branded with Mi.
MetroFlor.com $3,888 – Metroflor is a flooring company in Connecticut.
AlphaLeague.com $3,800 – As of now, the domain is in the name of a law firm. The nameservers point to AWS, so expect a site here soon.
Covesta.com €2,900 – CoVESTA Pty Ltd is an Australian firm that owns Covesta.com.au and it looks like they are still setting up their website. I think it will be some sort of financial syndication.
TEPS.co.uk £2,148 – Tax Efficient Procurement Services in London bought its acronym.
Zakatify.com $2,000 – Affinis Labs is some sort of startup accelerator. I assume Zakatify.com is for a new company or product.
PinnacleHealthManagement.com $2,000 – Western Growers, an insurance firm, offers health insurance services under the Pinnacle brand.
Top level domain name company Donuts will offer a new DPML Plus service for the last three months of this year.
The service, which has a suggested retail price of $9,999, is an enhancement to the company’s existing Domains Protected Marks List service.
The standard DPML allows brand owners to block domain names across all of Donuts’ domain names (currently 197) with one fee. The marks must be registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse, and the blocked second level domain names have to include the mark in full. Domain name registrar Encirca charges $2,895 for a 5 year DPML.
DPML Plus will allow customers to block both the mark and three additional second level domains that either include the mark or common typos of it. These blocks will last for ten years.
Additionally, DPML Plus customers can block premium domain names, which standard DPMLs cannot.
Another key difference between the two services is the ability to override. With standard DPML, another trademark holder with a mark in the Trademark Clearinghouse can unlock a matching blocked domain name for its own use. DPML Plus blocks are not subject to overrides. Also, DPML Plus customers can activate second level domains that match their own blocked terms for no additional fee beyond registration costs.
DPML Plus is considered a promotion, so availability beyond the end of the year will likely depend on how successful it is.
Donuts also announced plans to increase the cost of its standard DPML product. Donuts would not disclose updated pricing.
September 28, 2016Domaining, DomainnamewireComments Off on Huh? UDRP against 21-year-old domain based on 2-year-old trademark is not RDNH
Panelist wimps out on finding that complaint was RDNH.
A National Arbitration Forum panelist has failed to make a ruling of reverse domain name hijacking in an egregious UDRP filing.
Arthur Yarlett / Graphic-FX filed a UDRP against Michael McGloin / Visual Voice over the domain name VisualVoice.com. McGloin registered the domain name in 1995. Yarlett filed for a trademark on Visual Voice in 2013 and it was registered in 2014. The application cited a first use in 2011.
In other words, this case is dead on arrival because the domain name was clearly not registered in bad faith.
Panelist Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, a managing partner at an intellectual property law firm, found that Yarlett did not show a lack of rights in the domain name, nor did he show bad faith registration. Yet she declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, ostensibly because the complainant just didn’t know any better.
…WIPO panels have found that the onus of proving complainant bad faith in such cases is generally on the respondent, whereby mere lack of success of the complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, paragraph 4.17, and cases cited therein).
Another common feature of previous panel decisions is that there is a tendency to identify the bad faith requirement with the degree of the Complainant’s knowledge of its capability of meeting its burden of proof with regard to the mandatory elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy. For example, in carsales.com.au Limited v. Alton L. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047, the Panel states that “a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the policy”.
However, it is important not to overemphasize the Complainant’s failure to prove the Complaint, to the detriment of the demonstration of bad faith that is the essence of paragraph 15(e). A complainant with a weak claim may present this complaint in good faith. Not succeeding in the complaint does not amount to an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking except when it involves bad faith in an to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name (paragraph 1 of the Policy).
In light of the aforesaid, and taking into account that the Complainant satisfied paragraphs 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel judges that the present Complaint does not constitute a case of reverse domain name hijacking…
Russia, China, inventing the internet, losing control…but Trump leaves it there.
Last night’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton certainly was spirited. And there was a brief moment where it looked like the ICANN/IANA transition might be mentioned, at least at a high level.
My ears perked up when moderator Lester Holt asked this question:
Our next segment is called “Securing America.” We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?
This would be the time for a candidate to interject with something about the IANA transition, and the most likely person to mention it would be Trump given that his campaign has released a statement about it.
And for a second, it looked like Trump might go there. He mentioned the trigger words Russia and China, the U.S. creating the internet, and losing control. Referring to the DNC hacking, he said:
Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know, because the truth is, under President Obama we’ve lost control of things that we used to have control over.
We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.
But he didn’t end up going there. He concluded:
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.
September 26, 2016Domaining, DomainnamewireComments Off on I did a double take when I saw this domain name yesterday
I think you will, too.
I did a double take when I was driving home yesterday. I saw an interesting domain name as I passed by a truck. It took a few moments for it to hit me. Was that really what I just saw? I had to turn the car around to get a better look.
Take a look at this picture and I think you’ll understand my reaction:
Yes, that’s a .us.com domain name, one of the third level domain name options offered by CentralNic. It’s rare to come across these domain names, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one one promoted offline.
Based on DomainTools historical whois records and Archive.org, the company started using Hoodz.com.us but later realized it also needed Hoodz.us. Hoodz.us now forwards to Hoodz.us.com.
September 26, 2016Domaining, DomainnamewireComments Off on Kieren McCarthy explains the “internet handover” – DNW Podcast #103
Why Russia and China aren’t about to take over the internet.
The U.S. is “giving away the internet”? Hardly. On today’s show, journalist Kieren McCarthy explains what the U.S. government plans to do with its role in the internet at the end of this month, why it will not affect free speech, and why we need not worry about Russia or China taking over the internet as a result. Kieren, who writes for The Register, has been covering ICANN for many years and even worked there for a while, so he brings a unique perspective to the conversation. Also, a review of the latest news including GoDaddy, MMX, .NYC and more.
New: Listen to the podcast from any phone. Just call 701-719-9848.