Double jeopardy comes to UDRP.

Last week I wrote about a WIPO domain arbitration case in which a complainant refiled a case after losing the first time. The arbitrator ruled that the complainant didn’t include any information in its refiled case that it couldn’t have discovered and filed in its original case. So he dismissed the case.

But over at National Arbitration Forum double jeopardy is alive and well.

On April 6, an arbitrator ruled that Traditional Medicinals Inc. should not get the domain name MothersMilk.com. Besides the domain name being an obvious generic domain name, the arbitrator ruled that Traditional Medicinals didn’t show any proof of non-use of the domain name:

Complainant claims that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. However, there is no allegation or evidence demonstrating the use or non-use of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel cannot make a finding of bad faith on the merits of the case

(Incidentally, non-use by itself does not mean it was registered in bad faith.)

Fast forward a couple months and Traditional Medicinals is victorious. The company filed the case again, and this time got lucky with the arbitrator, who ruled:

Respondent has registered the mothersmilk.com domain name but has not made an active use of it. The Panel finds that passive non-use also supports findings of bad faith registration and use under [the policy].

Basically the same case. Tried twice. Two different outcomes. Sure seems like a complainant appeal process to me. Remember, the complainant has all the time in the world to make sure its paperwork is in order before filing. The respondent only has a couple weeks.

Incidentally, Traditional Medicinals is the same company that swiped the generic domain name SmoothMove.com from WorldWide Media. WorldWide Media sued to block the transfer.

[Hat tip to UDRPsearch.com]

Matt Cutt’s video series is worth watching.

There are a lot of half truths in the search engine optimization industry. So it’s refreshing to get an inside take from Google’s traveling search guru, Matt Cutts. I recommend watching his video series on YouTube.

As you know, I don’t usually recommend watching videos. But Cutts “cuts” to the chase (sorry, couldn’t help myself), answering the question in the first 30 seconds of each clip and then explaining his answers. Here are some of the questions Cutts answers in his videos:

-Should I use hyphens or underscores as separators in URLs? (A: Hyphens)

-How much does a domain’s age affect its ranking (A: Nothing really now, but this might matter in the future. Google filed a patent on this, but as of February this year it hadn’t implemented it.)

-Is redirecting a large number of domains suspicious? (A: Not necessarily. Google redirects a bunch of typos.)

-Does the position of keywords in the URL affect ranking? (A: Barely)

-Why does Google index blogs faster than other sites? (A: It may index them faster, but it may be just the blog index.)

Two large online domain name auctions conclude this week.

The online-only portion of the Domain Roundtable Aftermarket.com auction concludes today at 5 PM EDT. 269 domain names are up for grabs, ranging from $0 to $300,000. A number of domains in the under $3,000 arena have received bids already, including HealthAdvisor.com ($2,245), TopMortgage.com ($1,000), and eQuestion.com ($850). There are some well priced domains in this auction; bid online at Aftermarket.com.

Sedo’s monthly GreatDomains auction ends this Thursday. The highest domain name right now is 70.com at $51,000, but it has yet to meet its reserve of under $100,000. The next highest domains seem to have reserve prices that are a bit lofty for their value: Lonely.com with a reserve of $250k-$500k and Blade.com with a reserve of $100k-$250k.

Guests.com looks like it could sell as its current bid is $11,000 and has a reserve under $25,000. A number of three letter domains will sell as well. Currently opz.com, wxa.com, zmy.com, and zzr.com have all met their reserve prices.

Companies may try to capture their trademarks anywhere in URLs.

When Facebook announced that it was letting users reserve vanity URLs, the company put in place trademark protection measures. Twitter also has rules governing the use of usernames, which are found in Twitter URLs as Twitter.com/username.

It makes sense to protect both companies and individuals from people impersonating them on social networks. But it also sets a worrisome precedent that other social networks — and even regular web sites — will be subject to trademark holders claiming rights to disallow trademarks anywhere in URLs. For example, if I had a page at DomainNameWire.com/Coca-Cola.html, the company may ask that I take it down.

If this sounds far-fetched, just ask anyone who has received a cease and desist because of a keyword meta tag on their web site (I have seen those) or a company name being mentioned somewhere on a web page (I have received one of these).

Trademarks should be protected at two domain levels only: the top level (e.g. .com) and second level (e.g. company.tld). Domain owners should be allowed to use a company or trademark name in a subdomain (a.k.a. third level domain) as well as any directory. I worry that the policies of Facebook and Twitter may get trademark lawyers to start expanding that definition.

Site Service International loses case for AHI.com.

A company going by the name “Site Service International” has lost a domain name arbitration case for AHI.com. But before you cry “reverse domain name hijacking”, there’s more to this case than meets the eye. According to the complainant AHI Invest GmbH of Vienna, Austria, the domain name was stolen from it.

This isn’t the first time Site Service International has lost a case for a three letter domain name that was allegedly stolen. Since 2007, it has lost a half dozen cases involving three character domain names. In each case the details are similar: the complainant owned a three letter domain name that suddenly changed ownership and was transferred to a new registrar. The company has lost cases for rcw.com, jai.com, vou.com, wsw.com, and ocf.com.

It appears these aren’t the only cases of domain theft. The historical record for NLF.com shows Site Service International used to own it, and it followed the same registrar patterns as the other domains. It was recently transferred to a new registrant.

The Dallas address in whois for Site Service International appears to be an invalid address.