Archive for the ‘Policy & Law’ Category
Republican National Committee registers Cory Booker domains and creates petition sites.
Ever since Newark, New Jersey mayor and super-hero Cory Booker kinda-sorta-maybe got on the Obama campaign’s case for attacking Mitt Romney on his Bain record, Republicans everywhere have been rejoicing.
That includes the Republican National Committee, which just registered the domain names IStandWithCory.com and IStandwithCoryBooker.com and has created a web site for them.
The web site asks people to sign a petition saying “Don’t let the Obama campaign silence support for job creation.”
I’m not quite sure who is against job creation, but that’s how the spin doctors are working it out.
Of course, the Republicans don’t stand with Booker on other issues that they care about. Like gay marriage.
Maybe they should have registered IStandwithCoryBookerOnaNegativeCampaigningIssueButNotMuchElse.com
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Republicans Ready to Slam Congressional Dems with New Web Sites
- Republicans to ask WhoCaresAboutGlobalWarming.com?
- Republicans register StopRomneyPiousBaloney.com after Gingrich tells Romney to stop “pious baloney”
Baylor University gets “sucks” domain back after letting it expire.
It’s pretty easy to sit down here in Austin and say that Baylor sucks.
You can get on its case for yanking a gay student’s scholarship. And for waiting until the 90s to lift a ban on dancing on campus.
There’s also that little fact that the school is in Waco.
(The one thing we can’t do any more is say that its sports programs suck.)
But now the university is claiming a bit of suckiness itself: BaylorSucks.com
Baylor University is the proud new owner of this domain name — for the second time — after winning a dispute at National Arbitration Forum for the domain.
As more proof of its suckiness, Baylor used to own the domain name BaylorSucks.com. Had it not let the domain name expire in 2008 then it wouldn’t have had to file a complaint in the first case.
You can legitimately own domains like BaylorSucks.com if you do it to criticize the university and not profit from the site. But the owner of the domain merely parked it.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Baylor Bears Go Hunting for Baylor.com
- UniversityofTexas.com Handed Over to University
- Two Texas universities win .xxx domain disputes
When you know it’s time to select a different company name…
A Colorado company just lost a UDRP for Qwizzle.com, and it’s a great example of botched company naming.
The company, Qwizzle, LLC, knew that Qwizzle.com was taken when it came up with its name. It tried to contact the owner of Qwizzle.com but had no luck. It still decided to launch its business as Qwizzle but then filed a UDRP to try to get the domain name.
It lost the UDRP because Qwizzle.com was registered before it came up with the name for its online real estate company.
I started to research where I could find Qwizzle on the web. When I Google “quizzle”, the first two results are from Facebook and Twitter respectively. Then there’s Qwizzle.co, which resolved to a blank page save for the company’s favicon. This domain appears to be owned by Qwizzle.co. Quizzle.us looks like the actual site for the company, although it’s registered to someone in Michigan.
I noticed Qwizzle.net was registered, too. Surprisingly, it’s registered by Quicken Loans. Quicken has a site called Quizzle.com, and apparently there was some confusion as to how to spell it so they picked up the Qwizzle.net name as well.
That should have been a huge red flag for Qwizzle, LLC. If people are confused that Quizzle.com might be spelled Qwizzle.com, then certainly it can be the other way around. And Quicken Loans offers mortgage loans — which is too close for comfort to a real estate site.
If I were this company I would have just gone with another name (and domain).
Qwizzle wants to disrupt the traditional home marketing and real estate business. It’s a laudable goal, but they need to pick a different name.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
No related posts.
File sharing company files IP lawsuit over trademarks.
BitTorrent (and especially its users) are familiar with intellectual property lawsuits. But usually they’re on the receiving end.
Now the tables are turned. BitTorrent, Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit in California against BitTorrent Marketing GMBH for trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
According to BitTorrent, Inc. founder Bram Cohen, he first became aware of the defendant when it contacted him in 2003 and asked for permission to register the Bittorrent.de domain name. Cohen refused. The defendant went ahead and registered a lot of related domain names (including the .de domain) and managed to secure trademark registrations for the BitTorrent mark in Germany and Europe. When BitTorrent, Inc. tried to get its own trademarks in Europe, the defendant filed a petition to oppose BitTorrent, Inc’s trademark applications.
BitTorrent, Inc initiated litigation in Germany against BitTorrent Marketing GMBH in 2010. Now BitTorrent is bringing a case against the firm in the U.S.
According to Cohen’s lawsuit, the German company has registered hundreds of domain names that include “Bittorent”, such as the typo bitorrent.com, bittorrent.net, and bittorrent.de.
BitTorrent, Inc also says that the defendant has a history of bad activity in file sharing. It alleges the defendant has tried to usurp trademarks owned by other file sharing companies such as Kazaa and Morpheus.
Cohen’s company is suing for federal trademark infringement and cybersquatting, among other claims. On the cybersquatting claims it is asking for $100,000 per infringing domain name. Both the defendant and the respondent have filed cybersquatting claims in the past, but not against each other.
You can read the lawsuit here (large PDF).
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Domain Tools files preemptive lawsuit over copyright claims and its trademark
- BMW Files Cybersquatting Lawsuit
- Facebook Files Massive Cybersquatting Lawsuit
Don’t forget to prove earlier rights if you claim them.
Publisher Hidden Values has lost a dispute over the domain name TriangleKidsDirectory.com.
Hidden Values publishes the Kids’ Directory. It also has a registered trademark for KID’S DIRECTORY.
It’s an admittedly weak mark. It’s even a concurrent use registration that is limited in geographic scope.
But, the registrant of the domain name was a former licensee of Kids Directory and published the directory in the North Carolina “triangle”. And he didn’t respond to the dispute. So the odds were tipped in Hidden Values’ favor.
Regardless of what you think of the merits of this case and if UDRP is the proper venue for it, the case seems to have come down to when Hidden Values got trademark rights in “Kid’s Directory”. And this is where the company screwed up.
Hidden Values’ complaint mentions that it started using the mark in 1990. That’s the first-use-in-commerce date on its trademark application. But the trademark application wasn’t filed until 2005, after the respondent registered the TriangleKidsDirectory.com domain name. It should have been easy for the lawyer to show some common law rights previous to 2005 that would have been acceptable to the panel, but he dropped the ball:
“In the instant proceeding, Complainant has provided no documentary or other evidence to support the date of first use in Commerce referenced in its trademark application. This Panel therefore finds there to be a lack of evidentiary basis by which it might reasonably conclude that Complainant held rights in the KID’S DIRECTORY trademark prior to the May 12, 1995 [sic] date on which Respondent registered the disputed domain name.”
Had the company’s lawyer provided what should have been easy proof, I bet the company wins this case.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
No related posts.
Request for .xxx domain name denied.
United Kingdom insurance company BGL Group Limited, better known as CompareTheMarket.com, is the first complainant to lose a UDRP for a .xxx domain name.
The company filed the complaint against UK resident Jon Watkins, who registered the domain back in December when .xxx became generally available.
But as I’ve argued previously, it can be rather difficult to prove bad faith in the registration of a .xxx domain name. Most complainants aren’t in the adult entertainment business. And few .xxx domain names will be parked, which could have result in PPC ads related to a complainant. So unless the mark is very famous (and not descriptive/generic) or the owner of the domain tries to sell the domain to the complainant, proving registration in bad faith isn’t easy.
That’s what happened here. A Czech Arbitration Court panel wrote:
But Complainant fails to prove bad faith registration or use of the domain. Complainant states that the domain is “completely inactive”. Complainant does not show that Respondent tried to sell the domain to Complainant, has registered other infringing names, or otherwise has tried to profit from the domain or cause any other harm to Complainant. Respondent is not shown to have had prior UDRP cases in which he has been an unsuccessful Defendant. Clearly, “compare the market” could relate to myriad different types of markets and myriad different comparisons within each one, as demonstrated by a simple web search.
I’m not quite sure why BGL went after this domain name. If it were an active domain name with porn on it and it was getting search rankings I’d understand. Otherwise this seems like a waste of money.
Companies have filed over 20 UDRP cases against .xxx domain names. None had lost prior to this case.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Not-So-Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy
- WIPO publishes domain name dispute results summary
- Success Bank Unsuccessful in Domain Dispute
IPC questions ICANN’s ability to execute digital archery.
Digital archery is doomed.
The clever way ICANN plans to “batch” applications for new top level domains will either be killed, or it will be subject to accusations and lawsuits.
Shortly after the bug in ICANN’s new TLD application system was revealed I wrote about how this was going to cast a shadow of doubt on digital archery.
Then, as the number of applications slowly trickled out and delays mounted, I mentioned it again.
Now ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) is sharing the same concern:
The “digital archery” batching method announced by the ICANN Board on March 28 is complex, untried, and readily subject to gaming. The paralysis of ICANN’s new gTLD application system (TAS), resulting from a so-called “glitch” that ICANN failed to detect in testing the TAS, has now persisted for nearly a month, with no defined end in sight. This episode inescapably casts doubt on ICANN’s capacity to implement another technically complex system for batching evaluation of applications. Another such “glitch” in the earliest stages of the most ambitious and far-reaching project ICANN has ever undertaken would permanently damage the organization’s credibility, and likely call into question its continued viability as the steward of the domain name system.
Now, I understand that the IPC comes up with a lot of stuff to complain about. But it’s right in this case.
If ICANN goes forward with digital archery, applicants who end up in later batches will rightfully distrust the system after what happened with TAS.
The only way to make digital archery work is to have someone like PWC manage it. It simply cannot be done in house at ICANN.
My recommendation: find a creative economic way to persuade some applicants to wait for a later batch. With over 2,000 applications and $350 million in the bank, there’s plenty of money in the war chest.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- TAS glitch will call in to question digital archery for new TLDs
- Should ICANN can digital archery?
- ICANN’s $350 million windfall
Panel rules company can keep Norcross.com domain name.
Marchex has successfully defended the domain name Norcross.com in a UDRP with the help of domain name attorney John Berryhill.
Marchex acquired the domain when it bought Yun Ye’s Ultimate Search portfolio.
Norcross is a suburb of Atlanta and the parked page at Norcross.com has shown links related to Georgia, hotels, etc.
The complainant, Norcross Corporation, sells viscosity equipment. While I’ll applaud it for owning the domain name viscosity.com, it clearly was on the wrong side of this case.
Norcross Corporation complained that Marchex said it would only entertain offers of $30,000 or more for any of its domain names. Some panelists think they are equipped to appraise domain names and make comments about how outrageous certain asking prices are. But this three person panel gets it:
The fact that Respondent was only willing to sell the domain name to Complainants for a sum far in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the domain name does not establish the requisite bad faith since the Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name. A domain name registrant is always permitted to sell a domain name to which it has rights for a profit; that constitutes bad faith only when the domain name was acquired primarily for the bad faith purpose of selling it to the trademark owner.
I’ll toast to that.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Marchex Defends Domain from New Debt Reduction Company
- Marchex Defends Frontrunners.com Domain Name
- Marchex Wins UDRP for Walkaway.com
Company files two patent applications for making online ads social.
Google has filed two patent applications related to social interactions with online advertisements.
The applications, 20120116871 and 20120116867 (pdf), were filed in November and just published today. Both are titled “Social Overlays On Ads”.
The patent applications describe systems in which social overlays are placed on ads. For example, an ad my show how many people in your particular Google+ circles like an ad. It could also integrate into Google’s +1 system. If you +1′d an ad, members of your Google+ circles would then see that you like the ad. Viewers could also republish an ad to their social network, similar to how you can share a photo on Facebook now.
In the example below, the ad has a social overlay that says how many people in the user’s location +1′d the ad.
This idea sounds familiar to me. Let’s see, where have I seen something like this already…
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Go Daddy Gets Social Networking Portal Patent
- Google Awarded Patent for Local Search Integrated with Whois
- Go Daddy’s Patent Portfolio Could Be Big Draw in Sale
Case filed in Arizona to halt transfer of domain name.
A Texas man has filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the transfer of ConnectedWorld.com, a domain name he lost in a recent UDRP decision.
In the suit (pdf), Jeffrey Smith claims he has been working on a social network for eldercare since 2008. When the domain name ConnectedWorld.com came up for auction last year, he paid $7,100 to acquire the domain name.
Earlier this year, Specialty Publishing Company filed a UDRP for the domain name. Specialty Publishing Company owns Connected World Magazine and runs a conference by the same name. The company won the UDRP case.
In his suit, Smith admits that he was aware of Connected World since he participated in one of its conferences and his employer advertised in the magazine. Yet he claims his purchase of the domain name was unrelated to this and was just for his eldercare business idea.
But Smith is going to face an uphill battle given the allegations made in the UDRP case against him.
According to the UDRP decision, the day after Smith acquired the domain name he wrote to Specialty Publishing Company stating “By the way – I had the opportunity to pick up the domain name [connectedworld.com] so I did. I didn’t have an agenda just saw it available and picked it up before someone else did.” That seems to fly in the face of his assertion that it was for his eldercare social network.
Further communications between the parties are even more damning. As written in the decision:
Respondent’s subsequent e-mails with the Complainant further support the inference that Respondent purchased and registered the domain name in bad faith. In several follow-up e-mails, Respondent informed Complainant that Respondent had been contacted by several people since Respondent bought the domain name (June 22, 2011 e-mail), that Respondent has sold domain names in the past (February 21, 2012 e-mail), that Respondent received a quarter of a million dollars for the sale of memorial.com (February 21, 2012), and that “Almost everything is for sale, we are just negotiating a price” (February 21, 2012).
If Smith is in the wrong, he could be opening himself up to paying a bigger penalty than just losing the domain name.
(As a side note, it does appear that Smith sold Memorial.com to Kevin Ham’s Vertical Axis in 2006. I don’t recall seeing this sale reported. Although I wouldn’t consider the assertion in the UDRP that he sold it for $250,000 proof of the sales price, it seems reasonable.)
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Unlike UDRP, Nominet doesn’t want your .uk disputes to go to court
You can go forward to the next page