Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • 2014 Domain Name Wire Survey: By the Numbers

    1. BY - Apr 23, 2014
    2. Uncategorized
    3. 1 Comment

    251 people from 36 countries participated in this year’s survey.

    Over the next week or two I’ll post a series of stories with the results from this year’s Domain Name Wire survey.

    I’d like to start by thanking each and every person who took the survey. 251 people from 36 countries responded this year. That’s fewer than in previous years because this year’s survey didn’t have any voting for companies. However, I think the quality of response was higher.

    The chart below shows a breakdown of survey-takers. The top row shows the percentage that are domain investors (75%). The second is the number that work for or own a domain registrar (19%) and the bottom row includes everyone that owns another type of domain services company (20%). Obviously, there’s a lot of crossover in this industry.


    Of those that identified themselves as domain investors, 80% said that at least 3/4 of their domains were .com. About 30% of survey-takers own at least 1,000 domain names.

    I promised a few prizes to those that took the time to complete the survey:

    Ira Z. won a free escrow at (10 others will receive a discounted escrow at Agreed.) Fred M. and Jeff B. have won a copy of David Kesmodel’s book “The Domain Game”. I’ll contact all winners over the next few days.

  • 15 end user domain name sales up to $42,500

    1. BY - Apr 23, 2014
    2. Domain Sales
    3. 1 Comment leads list of end user domain name sales.

    GoDaddy and Afternic sold nearly $2 million worth of domain names last week.

    Here’s a list of 15 that were sold to end users. You can view previous end user sales lists here. $42,500 – A New York firm called Trade360. $25,000 – Jackson Square Aviation in San Francisco. I think it got a good deal. BuyDomains was the seller. $4,999 – The online lamp seller that was using They have a notice on their site that reads “We have a new address to reach this store that may make it easier to remember:”. $17,900 – Almond Board of California $11,750 – the owner of the unfortunate domain name $1,688 – Online advertising firm Huddled Masses, which has been using the web address $1,200 – Credentialing company Verisys. $1,250 – IPDS, which is short for IP Data Systems. $2,471 – Presqu’ile Winery in California. It has been using $1,599 – Indiana property management company Herman & Kittle Properties $1,888 – UK Asbestos Specialists Ltd $2,588 – Suburban Transportation in Syracuse, New York. $2,500 – Political communications firm Hamilton Place Strategies. $3,500 – Healthcare imaging company Alliance Imaging. I assume “rad” stands for radiology. $6,675 – Myrtle Beach vacation rentals site upgraded to .com.

  • Network Solutions patents domain purchasing system

    1. BY - Apr 22, 2014
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 2 Comments

    Patent for domain purchasing system granted ten years after application was filed.

    Network Solutions, now part of, has received a patent for its Certified Offer service…ten years after applying for it.

    Network Solutions applied for the patent titled “Certified Offer Service for Domain Names” back in 2004. It was rejected multiple times, but the company successfully amended and appealed.

    The service lets customers make an offer on a domain name that is already registered. The patent explains that the first step of the service is providing an automated appraisal to the customer to give them an idea of how much the domain is worth. The customer then makes an offer and Network Solutions tries to verify that the buyer has enough funds to pay for the domain if the offer is accepted. (As I’ve found, this isn’t always the case). Network Solutions then emails the domain owner (presumably using contact information in WHOIS) to present the offer to them.

    The company charges an initial offer fee as well as a commission on the purchase price.

    The patent (pdf) covers many aspects of the Certified Offer service as it’s currently run today. I tried to verify all of the steps, but they seem to be having technical difficulties right now as the service keeps hanging up when I submit a domain.


  • Three domain name blogs rebrand

    1. BY - Apr 22, 2014
    2. Uncategorized
    3. 5 Comments

    Two blogs combine in merger and another changes its name.

    Three domain name industry blogs have rebranded over the past week.

    Two are accounted for in a merger between Shane Cultra’s blog Domain Shane and Aaron Wilkin’s Accidental Domainer. The new blog is officially called Domain Shane + Accidental Domainer, but you can access the site at the shorter domain The merged blog has an updated pinterest-style design as well.

    Raymond Hackney has rebranded his blog as Hackney also writes for TheDomains and His rebranded and restyled blog was designed by Nuts and Bolts Media, the company that recently handled a redesign of TheDomains. Both Hackney’s site and TheDomains now have responsive themes, meaning you don’t have to pinch and zoom to read the content on mobile devices.

    Congratulations to all three writers.

  • owner gets in second attempt UDRP

    1. BY - Apr 22, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 6 Comments

    Domain transfer (that didn’t actually happen) resets the clock for registration date.

    My ArtMy Art, a French company that operates the website, has convinced a Czech Arbitration Court UDRP panelist to order the transfer of the domain name

    This is the second time My Art has filed a UDRP against the domain name.

    My Art lost a case it filed in 2011 because the registrant of the domain name had registered it in 1996, well before the company had a trademark on the name.

    It refiled its case by falsely claiming that the domain name was transferred to a new owner after the first case was decided. The transfer counts as a “new registration”, changing the registrant’s registration date to after My Art got its trademark.

    It filed the first case when the domain name was under whois privacy. The domain owner name is now disclosed, but a look at historical whois records shows that it’s the same person who owned the domain when the first UDRP was filed.

    Technically, the trademark is for “My-Art”, which jives with the company’s current web address.

    Although the domain owner did himself a disservice by not responding to the complaint, I still think this is a questionable decision even if the domain had changed hands. The panelist didn’t even deliberate on the simple fact that this is a generic domain. It’s quite clear that My Art chose the hyphenated domain because the non-hyphenated one was taken. Someone registering a trademark similar to a generic or descriptive domain you registered a long time ago shouldn’t be able place a restriction on selling the domain to someone else.

    [Update: this story has been updated to show that the domain didn't actually change hands. Thanks to Nat Cohen for pointing this out.]