Arbitration panel finds no bad faith, but declines to find reverse domain name hijacking.

A Korean man has successfully defended against a domain arbitration claim waged by United Kingdom pharmaceutical company Reckitt Benckiser Plc for the domain name RB.net.

Reckitt Benckiser claimed to have common law rights to the term ‘RB’. It claimed that the domain name was a parking page until 2006 showing unrelated pay-per-click links, and since then has not resolved. The arbitration panel summarized this claim:

“The Respondent is rather using the disputed domain name misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the RB Mark. Indeed, the fact that the disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive webpage is supposed to indicate the Respondent’s desire to block such name from registration by the Complainant.”

This is an interesting assertion, as a domain name that doesn’t resolve likely doesn’t tarnish a trademark.

The panel decided that the domain name wasn’t registered and used in bad faith, citing many reasons including:

-It’s unlikely the registrant in Korea had heard of the company when he registered the domain. The company was created in 1999 as a result of a merger.
-RB, like most acronyms, has many possible uses and doesn’t necessarily refer to the complainant.

However, the panel declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, writing “In the present case, where the Complainant owns if limited common law trade mark rights identical to the second level domain name, there is no room for a reverse domain name hijacking order.”

RB.com is owned and used by Robert Bentley, Inc.

Dispute over osram.tel will test new top level domain.

Osram GmbH has filed the first ever UDRP dispute for a .tel domain name, going after the domain Osram.tel.

This should be an interesting case because of the differences between .tel and other top level domain names. In a UDRP, the complainant must prove three things:

1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

3. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

The first requirement will be the same on .tel as other domains. But the second and third requirements will have to be proven in different ways than is sometimes done for “regular” domain names.

Typically, the complainant will point to the respondent’s web page or parked page and say that the respondent is making money from it. On .tel pages there are no official ads and content is limited. So it will be harder to show this. Complainants also point out when the respondent hasn’t used the domain name yet, saying this is proof he didn’t have plans to use the domain. But .tel domain names take 1 minute to set up to what would be considered a “developed domain”, so this will also be harder to use against the respondent.

I suppose one type of “bad faith” proof would be if a lawyer included his phone number on famouslawfirmname.tel to capture business from it. But I suspect .tel UDRPs will be a challenge for complainants.

Actress Sigourney Weaver picks up her namesake domain name.

Actress Sigourney Weaver has been awarded the domain name SigourneyWeaver.com by an arbitration panel at National Arbitration Forum. She filed the claim last month.

The owner of the domain name, Stephen Gregory, did not respond to the allegations. Weaver’s complaint stated that Gregory forwarded the domain name to a porn site until the complaint was received, at which time the forward was removed. The complaint also pointed out that Gregory has lost two other celebrity domain name cases, including FrandRescher.com and BradFaxon.com. Weaver claimed that previous celebrity cases usually involved forwarding the domain name to an adult web site. Gregory won a case over the domain name Foreigner.com back in 2003.

Weaver, a popular actress, has starred in many movies including the Alien franchise.

The risks of releasing hundreds of new TLDs at once outweigh the benefits.

It’s no secret that I’m generally opposed to introducing new top level domain names. And I’m not alone. Even before people started talking about a mass introduction of new TLDs, most of the domain name industry was opposed to new TLDs. I’ve asked the question on every Domain Name Wire survey for the past four years, and the no’s always beat the yes’.

But I think it’s important to explain my reasoning, and that I put everything on the table.

Every person and entity that is making a case in favor or against new TLDs has something to gain or lose if they are introduced. The registries and registrars will make money (at least in the short term), the consulting companies will make money, the outside trademark attorneys will make money, ICANN will make money and expand, and the large trademark holders think they will lose money. Other people think they will get rich registering and reselling new domains. .Com domain owners will likely not see any adverse effect (they may actually get more traffic), but domain investors in other extensions may be hurt.

I personally stand to reap a windfall in the early years if new domains are introduced. Registries will clamor to promote their TLDs and rise above the noise, and that means they’ll come to sites like Domain Name Wire to advertise.

But after a few years I, and the internet community, will be in a worse position. That’s why I’m opposed to new TLDs.

1. Consumer confusion will lead to an unsafe internet. New TLDs will make it easier to carry out scams and phishing attacks. Don’t think about your internet skill level; think about your grandparents’. Will they recognize that BankName.web isn’t really their bank?

2. ICANN will lose its path. Even though it will get a lot of money from the introduction of new TLDs, managing the ensuing headaches will be challenging. It will take its eye off the ball of what it was set up to do, especially when it has to defend against multiple lawsuits.

3. Politics will play a bigger role in the Net. The process of introducing new TLDs has already shown how politics rears its ugly head. Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is using this as an opportunity to add new restrictions to geographical names. Various countries and politicians are using this as an excuse to add or change regulation.

4. Registries will fail, leaving customers in a lurch. Even when a registrar fails, such as Parava, people can lose access to their web sites and lots of money. The same thing will happen with new TLD operators. The draft guidebook includes very limited protection to keep registries going after failure.

5. Large registrars will become too powerful, harming competition. Registries need the support of registrars to push their domains, as they control the “shelf space” for selling domain names. The big registrars will be able to negotiate sweetheart deals, thus hurting small registrars. Big registrars will also be able to create their own TLDs and push them. (There’s an ongoing battle over separation between registry and registrar.) This will ultimately decrease registrar competition.

6. Fundamental changes to domain name regulation will be pushed through without proper controls. We’re already seeing a rush job on changing how trademarks and domain arbitration works.

This isn’t all-inclusive, but is an overview of my rationale. Why not start with a few IDNs or a limited release of new TLDs? Why open up the floodgates at a cost of over ten million dollars? It doesn’t seem like a rational business or policy decision.

Use DomainTools’ whois history to research the history of a domain name you’re buying.

When you’re ready to shell out a bunch of cash for a domain name, it’s important to understand the ownership history of the domain name. There’s no title insurance for domains, so the onus is on you to make sure the domain isn’t stolen and has clean title.

In fact, it was DomainTools’ whois history that saved me from buying a stolen domain name for $5,000 back in 2005.

To access whois history, just search for the domain on DomainTools. Scroll down to “DomainTools Exclusive” to see if there are any archived whois records:

Clicking on the link will bring you to a page that shows all of the dates of recorded whois records. Red dates indicate records protected by whois privacy, and shading generally indicates similar records.

You should look for frequent changes in ownership, as well as short ownership periods. In the case referenced above, the domain was owned by one person until it briefly changed hands (and registrars) for 5 days, only to jump to a different owner and registrar after that. I ended up calling the previous registrant who told me the domain was stolen. The extra effort was a small price to pay to avoid losing $5,000.