FreshDrop to include NameMedia domains in its powerful domain search tool.

FreshDrop, a search tool primarily used for finding valuable expiring domain names, has inked a partnership with NameMedia. This will allow FreshDrop to include BuyDomains and AfternicDLS domains within FreshDrop, making it very easy for domain investors to scan these domain databases to find gems.

FreshDrop is one of the few subscription-based domain products I subscribe to. It has helped me pick up some spectacular expired domains this year. The power behind FreshDrop is that it pulls in all of the domain inventory feeds and runs stats on them, allowing you to cut the data however you’d like. For example, you can exclude all domains with numbers or hyphens, only look at domains over a certain age, only find domains in which more TLDs are already registered, etc. You can sort by literally dozens of factors.

You don’t have to be a paid subscriber to access the BuyDomains and Afternic inventory. Subscribers get access to NameJet, SnapNames, and Pool inventories.

Rain.com enters arbitration.

If it seems like it has been raining frivolous domain arbitration disputes lately, then this should catch your eye: someone has filed to get the domain name Rain.com.

You read that correctly — Rain.com.

The case was filed Tuesday at National Arbitration Forum. Unlike WIPO, National Arbitration Forum doesn’t list the name of the complainant until a decision has been rendered.

But we know plenty about the domain owner, hosting company Verio. Verio purchased RAINet, Inc. in 1996. With that acquisition came the domain name Rain.com, which was originally registered way back in 1990. Rain.com currently shows a Verio landing page.

Unless someone knows something I don’t, then the identity of the complainant will remain a mystery for another month or two. There are plenty of trademarks for the term “rain”, but this isn’t one I’m willing to guess about.

Two sides speak about Ad.com lawsuits.

Here’s the latest on the news Domain Name Wire broke earlier today about Marcos Guillen suing Directi/Skenzo for backing out of its $1.4M purchase of Ad.com.

First, Oversee.net (or one of its subsidiaries) also sued Directi/Skenzo for breaching the contract. That case has now been combined with Guillen’s case against the company. (Oversee.net is the parent company of auction organizer Moniker.)

In a statement released to Domain Name Wire, Oversee.net spokesperson Mason Cole explained:

It’s unfortunate this step had to be taken. It’s very important that all parties in an auction transaction — buyer, seller and auctioneer — as well as the auction process and auction laws, be respected. We’re continuing to ACTIVELY work with all parties and would very much like to resolve this outside the courts.

We also received an official explanation from Marcos Guillen, the “seller” of ad.com. Here’s what he had to say:

I don’t see this as a trademark issue. AOL’s claim of a trademark in a domain name I have owned since 1997, and I’ve been using it before for pay links and advertising, years before AOL claims of first use: example 1 example 2

AOL filed their trademark application after I agreed to list the domain name with Moniker for auction in September 2008. The ad.com auction was announced by Moniker on September 5, 2008…

Then, AOL rushed to file their trademark application on September 24, 2008, because the TRAFFIC auction was held on September 25, 2008. That is not a mere coincidence. They filed their application a day before the auction, and long after I had listed the domain name. The domain name did not sell at that auction, so it went to the next TRAFFIC auction.

Ask yourself how it is that I have had this domain name since 1997, and then in 2008, the day before an announced auction, a trademark application is filed by a company which claims it has “goodwill” in a mark that does not even correspond to a domain name they have? Why would they be using, as a trademark, something that would send their customers somewhere else? It doesn’t make sense. If you have a valuable business at automobiles.com, but did not own or operate auto.com, then why would you be branding and advertising as “auto.com”? That would be stupid.

The bidding war at TRAFFIC was exciting, but after that Skenzo started dragging their feet. They where supposed to pay 5 days later, but they didn’t. One week later they got an email from AOL lawyers, and everybody freaked out. AOL lawyers did a great job mudding the waters, they claimed that they have contacted me before (they had not), and Skenzo probably thought that they would be better off facing me in court than AOL. All the time, the AOL trademark application remained refused by the USPTO.

There is no trademark. There is a refused registration application filed under very curious circumstances, a screenshot made for the purpose of the application, no evidence at all of any common law rights, and no notice of a claim to me prior to listing the domain name for auction.

I believe Skenzo will come back to their senses now that the Hotels.com decision is out and the USPTO, on their own initiative, withdrew the allowance count for the AOL TM application. Otherwise I’ll have to think that the problem here is not really the trademarks, but Skenzo unwillingness to honor their agreement.

AOL stretches its trademarks beyond belief.

Apparently AOL thinks it owns every domain name that is some variation of “Advertising”.

The company just filed a lawsuit against Advertise.com. Advertise.com was formerly known as ABCsearch.com until it bought the domain name Advertise.com for an undisclosed price earlier his year.

The lawsuit claims:

…Advertise.com recently commenced use of the virtually identical and confusingly similar designation Advertise.com and design in connection with the same and complimentary services as those offered by Plaintiffs under their federally-registered Advertising.com name and marks and their Ad.com name and marks.

AOL claims this could cause confusion amongst people who think Advertise.com is endorsed by or affiliated with AOL’s Advertising.com and Ad.com trademarks.

Of course, AOL’s claim of trademark rights to Ad.com is dubious at best. The company is struggling to get approval for the trademark with the USPTO. AOL has never owned the domain name Ad.com, but has called its Advertising.com unit Ad.com in the past.

AOL’s claim to Ad.com mark is part of the reason that the $1.4M sale of Ad.com fell through and is subject to a lawsuit.

A search of the USPTO database shows that AOL has three registered trademarks for Advertising.com, but all are design trademarks. Based on recent cases for challenged trademarks such as Hotels.com, the company would not be able to get a trademark simply for the word “Advertising” on the principal register.

Lawsuit complaint is here (pdf).

Hat tip George Kirikos.

Update: Advertise.com also filed suit against AOL, perhaps as a preemptive lawsuit.

Seller files suit after $1.4M deal falls through.

Ad.com owner Marcos Guillen has filed a lawsuit against Directi and Skenzo for backing out of its auction purchase of Ad.com.

The sale caught mainstream attention when Skenzo bought the domain at Moniker’s TRAFFIC auction in Silicon Valley this past April for $1.4M. But immediately after the sale, issues started popping up.

The exact circumstances leading to the failed purchase are not clear, although they are apparently related to intellectual property rights. (Directi and Skenzo founder Divyank Turakhia has not yet responded to a request for comment. We’ll update this story when/if he comments.) The USPTO trademark database shows six pending trademarks for Ad.com. One of the trademarks was filed by an AOL company. The other five were filed by a company called AD.COM INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC. The latter filed its trademarks after the landmark purchase and is claiming a first use in commerce date of 1993. [Update: to reiterate, none of the 6 trademarks have been approved. AOL's application is for how it used Ad.com for its Advertising.com site. They submitted this specimen when filing. On August 14 the trademark examiner sent a non-final office action that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness. Given recent trademark cases such as Hotels.com, it's doubtful that AOL's application will be approved. Also, Ad.com has been offered for sale at previous Moniker auctions. AOL didn't file for the trademark until after Ad.com was advertised for sale.]

Guillen filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court for Breach of Contract. He is seeking $1.4M, prejudgment interest, and/or damages according to proof.

The lawsuit is unfortunate for all parties involved, including auction organizer Moniker and the domain industry as a whole. The sale made up the bulk of Moniker’s revenue from the auction including a fat $210,000 commission. The next highest sale was BottledWater.com at $45,000.