Archive for November, 2009


DOMAINfest Goes to Getty Center for a Bit of Contrast

Conference to include night at The Getty.

Oversee.net today announced that that it will hold a networking dinner at the Getty Center on Wednesday night, January 27, during its DOMAINfest Global conference.

Getty CenterThe Getty sits on a 110-acre hilltop site in the Santa Monica Mountain range. The entire campus will be reserved for DOMAINfest attendees, which will get access to its architecture, gardens and views of Los Angeles and the coast. Guests will have exclusive access to the West Pavilion and its collection of art, as well as to the Special Exhibition Pavilion, which includes a limited-time Rembrandt exhibition on loan to the Getty.

To facilitate networking and fun, the DOMAINfest party at the Getty will feature a sketching competition and a mystery art quest that involves unlocking a secret code using clues related to art work on display in the West Pavilion.

I’m excited about this addition to the agenda. But I have to ask, is Oversee trying to see how much contrast it can pull between Wednesday night and Thursday? We’re talking Rembrandt and architecture on Wednesday night, and then the Playboy Mansion on Thursday night.

Photo: Getty.edu



Paris Wins Parvi.org in Disturbing Domain Name Arbitration Decision

Paris wins domain as arbitrator throws out “registration AND use” in bad faith.

In September I wrote about the city of Paris, France filing a UDRP against three domain names: WifiParis.com, Wifi-Paris.com, and Parvi.org. Paris was just handed a victory in the Parvi.org case; the other two cases are pending.

What’s disturbing about the Parvi.org case is that the panel found that the domain name was likely not registered in bad faith, but still handed the domain over on the basis that it was later used in bad faith.

Under the header “Reconsideration of the bad faith requirement”, arbitrator Andrew F. Christie cited previous cases decided by a “distinguished” panelist who found that domain names don’t need to be registered AND used in bad faith, as the UDRP states. Instead, this panelist decided that a domain not registered in bad faith could still violate the policy if it was later used in bad faith.

Christie writes:

The intent of the Policy is to provide a fair and efficient mechanism for trademark owners to obtain redress in situations where their trademark rights are abused as a result of bad faith activities of domain name registrants. There seems no reason in logic or in principle why the availability of redress should be confined to situations where bad faith is present at the time of acquisition of the domain name

Well, the policy is also supposed to provide a fair mechanism for domain name owners. That Paris filed two egregious cases of reverse domain name hijacking at the same time it filed the Parvi.org case should cause any panel to give the benefit of the doubt to the respondent.

Indeed, Christie doesn’t think the domain owner knew about the Parvi trademark at the time of his registration:

…Although it is certainly possible that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s PARVI trademark, and of the Complainant’s programs under that trademark, at the time the Respondent registered the domain name, this seems unlikely given the different geographical locations and native languages of the Complainant and the Respondent. Thus, this Panel is not satisfied, on the present record, of the probability that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of benefiting from the Complainant’s PARVI trademark.

If the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith but was later used in a way to violate Paris’ trademark, its redress is in the courts, not UDRP. This sort wholesale change and expansion of UDRP by panelists is one of the reasons people are questioning the implementation of the policy. Whenever a panelist writes that his reasoning is “a logical and incremental evolution of panel thinking”, one should give pause.

Perhaps Andrew Christie is on a crusade to implement his vision on UDRP. He was also the presiding panelist on the Project.me case, which broke with precedent by suggesting that the top level domain should be considered part of the domain for trademark purposes.



Blockbusters: Russia.com Sells for $1.5 Million, Marchex Sells Dominio.com for $250,000

Two big domain name sales over holiday week.

In what should have been a lackluster week thanks to the Thanksgiving holiday, Sedo turned in one of its best performances of the year for domain sales. Leading the pack was a sale you’ve probably read about already, Russia.com at $1.5 million. The buyer wants to remain anonymous, and is using GoDaddy’s whois protection to shield their identity. The domain currently points to a basic GoDaddy parking page.

Another big sale this week was Dominio.com for $250,000. Marchex sold the domain name to RegistrarAds, Inc., an affiliate of domain registrar Dotster. Dominio is Spanish for domain.

Below are other notable sales for the week. Note the sales of Dental.net, Daimler.mobi, and Cosmetics.info.

.COM
64.com 89,000 USD
gameland.com 55,000 USD
billets.com 28,500 EUR
thesan.com 18,500 USD
1199.com 13,000 USD
xai.com 12,650 EUR
paybacktime.com 12,500 USD
cashed.com 11,000 USD
ecolife.com 10,000 USD
cartouche.com 9,800 EUR
i-milk.com 7,500 USD
blacky.com 7,500 USD
poppin.com 7,200 USD
5544.com 7,000 USD
uuing.com 6,000 USD
atriel.com 6,000 USD
oltchim.com 5,500 USD
familyprotection.com 5,500 USD
hipe.com 5,105 USD
safeshopping.com 5,000 USD
salondejuegos.com 5,000 EUR
activeden.com 5,000 USD
sincer.com 5,000 USD
xseries.com 5,000 USD

ccTLDs
kindergartenbeirat.de 44066 EUR
ort.de 23800 EUR
1a-krankenversicherung.de 11900 EUR
ke.de 11900 EUR
lodging.co.uk 11900 GBP
66.de 9000 EUR
abstractart.co.uk 8700 GBP
creditcards.de 8600 USD
sh.de 8000 EUR
cheap-generic-viagra.co.uk 7000 GBP
xx.de 6600 EUR
reprisemedia.pl 5950 EUR
buchungen.de 5950 EUR
mz.de 5212 EUR
coloriages.fr 5100 EUR
estates.tv 5000 USD
mountainbike.co.uk 5000 GBP
christiandating.co.uk 3827 GBP

Other
qq.net 31001 EUR
dental.net 27500 USD
kostenlos.net 8500 EUR
daimler.mobi 7500 USD
cosmetics.info 6500 EUR
aeropuerto.info 6500 EUR
iaf.org 5050 EUR



DNW Radio: Antony Van Couvering Discusses gTLD “Expressions of Interest”

Our latest guest on Domain Name Wire Radio is Antony Van Couvering, founder of new gTLD consulting company Minds + Machines. I invited Antony onto the show to discuss ICANN’s Expressions of Interest for new top level domain names.

On the show, Antony discusses how this idea was born, as well as critical components he believes are necessary for the Expressions of Interest to help ICANN predict the number and type of top level domains that will be applied for.

If you have an opinion on Expressions of Interest, be sure to post a comment for ICANN.

As always, you can either listen to the show by clicking the button below, or read the transcript. See previous DNW Radio shows at DomainNameWire.com/radio.



National Arbitration Forum Provides Shortcut to UDRP Arbitrators

Law clerk may have written much of your domain dispute.

Being a domain name arbitrator under UDRP for National Arbitration Forum doesn’t pay particularly well. That is, if you are an arbitrator who takes your job seriously.

But National Arbitration Forum provides a shortcut to arbitrators, allowing them to “cut-and-paste” their way to quick decisions.

Here’s how it works. When an arbitrator receives a new UDRP domain name case, (s)he is also provided with a memo written by a National Arbitration Forum law clerk. This memo outlines the main issues under each of the three elements of a case (confusing similarity, rights or legitimate interests, registration and use in bad faith). For each element, it provides a case both for the complainant and the respondent.

For example, it may suggest that if the arbitrator is in favor of the complainant on confusing similarity, possible support for the reasoning is X, Y, and Z and vice versa.

It’s true that many judges have law clerks who assist them with research. But under the structure of domain name arbitration, this practice creates a number of problems.

A couple of the problems are technical issues. First, the process defies the logical legal process of the arbitrator considering all of the facts and then coming to a conclusion on his or her own. Second, it may violate rule 15 (a) of the UDRP rules:

Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

National Arbitration Forum is extending beyond the statements and documents submitted, providing an additional document for consideration by the arbitration panel.

But the biggest problem is that the law clerk memos enable “cut-and-paste” arbitrators who quickly decide and write cases based on what the law clerk provides to them. For each aspect of UDRP, they merely cut and paste what the law clerk wrote for their particular view, put it in the correct format, and turn it in. And, depending on whom you talk to, some times the law clerks get it wrong.

This may explain why you see very similar logic and explanations across multiple UDRPs by different arbitrators. It may also explain why you see National Arbitration Forum cases with empty references and lack of logical flow.

National Arbitration Forum did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story.

Next time you lose a UDRP, consider that you may have been a victim of a cut-and-paste arbitrator.


Next Page »


TOP