Case over generic domain name denied.

A National Arbitration Forum panelist has rejected a company’s claim to the domain name MyHealth.com.

My Health, Inc registered its mark for “My Health” in 2009. But the registrant of the domain name acquired it prior to that (in 2007) for $150,000. Making matters worse, when My Health, Inc filed its complaint it thought that the respondent had owned the domain name since way back in 1995. Regardless of which date you choose, the complaint must fail because there was no way for the registrant to register it with the non-existent (at the time) trademark holder in mind.

Another interesting aspect to this case is that the panelist brings up the issue of reverse domain name hijacking even though the respondent didn’t request it — but then declines to find RDNH because it wasn’t requested:

It appears from the facts of this case that Complainant established its business and trademark rights while aware that the disputed domain name was already registered by another entity. Indeed, it appears that Complainant brought this arbitration proceeding only after negotiations to purchase or join with Respondent failed. Lastly, as noted above, Complainant has alleged bad-faith registration notwithstanding the fact that it did not even exist (or own any trademark rights) at the time of Respondent’s registration.

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides inter alia that the Panel may find that the Complainant brought an arbitration proceeding “in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or . . . primarily to harass the domain-name holder.” … However, the Respondent has not alleged Reverse Domain Hijacking and the Panel declines to make this determination where the parties have not raised the issue or been given the opportunity to brief the Panel on their respective positions.

A panelist does not need a party to raise the issue of RDNH in order to rule on it. But the fact that he brings it up in his decision shows his opinion on the matter.

An official look at Go Daddy’s revenue numbers.

I still remember a conversation just before the Super Bowl in 2005. I was eating lunch with a bunch of techies and the topic of Super Bowl commercials came up. Someone asked “who is this Go Daddy company, anyway?”

Flash forward to 2010. If you ask someone on the street where they would go to register a domain name, they’ll likely say “Go Daddy”. About half of all newly-registered domains are registered at the company.

Go Daddy continues to grow like gangbusters. I’ve reported some of the company’s numbers on Domain Name Wire before, but yesterday I had a chance to get an official historical look at the company’s growth from Ryan Corder, Senior Director of Finance for the company.

Sources: The Go Daddy Group, SEC Filings

The company’s growth since the opening up of registrar accreditation has been staggering. In 2001 the company grossed $4.3 million in GAAP revenue; last year it hit $610 million. I had previously reported revenue of $750 million for 2009, but this was actually sales. (As a growing company, GAAP revenue lags sales because sales are recognized over a period of time.) For 2010 the company forecasts between $940-$950 million in sales.

Perhaps more important as a privately-held company is Go Daddy’s cash flow. The company forecasts an operating cash flow of $140-$150 million for 2010.

Go Daddy’s employee base has grown with the revenue, bringing much needed jobs to Arizona and Iowa. In 2003 the company employed 323 people; it now keeps 2,700 (and growing) on the payroll.

No wonder Bob Parsons is always smiling.

Swimmer’s foundation goes after domain name owner.

The non-profit Michael Phelps Foundation, established by the Olympic swimmer, has sued to get the domain name MichaelPhelpsFoundation.com.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maine, names Domains by Proxy, Inc., a domain whois proxy service, and Does 1-10 as defendants. It is typical for a proxy service to be named in a lawsuit and it is typically dropped once the proxy service transfers the domain back to its real owner.

The domain name was registered in 2008, just two days after Phelps won his record setting eighth gold medal in a single Olympics. Phelps had not yet started his foundation.

The domain was originally registered by a Minnesota man before the whois proxy service was used. The author of the web site at MichaelPhelpsFoundation.com claims that he had good intentions in registering the domain name:

To be quite clear, MPF was created as a “foundation” or a home “base” where fans, like yourself, can come to share, chat, research, debate, contribute, and connect with one another on the past, present and future surrounding, who some are considering to be the greatest hero in history, Michael Phelps.

It wasn’t until after MPF was created that we heard that Michael Phelps was, in fact, going to establish a new swimming foundation.

A blog on the web site has two entries from 2008.

Case dropped pending settlement.

A lawsuit filed against the original registrant of CamRoulette.com has been settled.

Craig Snyder (not related to the Oversee.net employee) originally registered CamRoulette.com and sold it for $1,200. But another person, Fraser Brown, said he had already agreed to purchase the domain name from Snyder for $700 before Snyder sold it to the other party for $1,200.

It likely wouldn’t have bothered anyone if it weren’t for the domain quickly being resold for $151,000 shortly thereafter. Brown sued, claiming damages for the difference between his $700 offer and the $151,000 sales price.

The terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed, and the case may be reopened within 30 days should the settlement fall through.

It’s not surprising to see an agreement reached. It appeared that Brown had identified another (wealthier) Craig Snyder as the culprit instead of the actual Snyder (who says he’s broke). There probably wasn’t much to gain by moving forward with the suit.

Court asks for explanation, but it’s probably a moot point anyway.

United States District Judge Susan Illston has asked DS Holdings and The United States to file a response to accusations that auctioning off domains previously held by John Zuccarini at a TRAFFIC auction would be a conflict of interest. Zuccarini complained to the court that this would be a conflict of interest since TRAFFIC co-organizer Howard Neu once represented him in the cybersquatting lawsuit that led to the judgment for which the domains would be auctioned.

The order states:

DS Holdings and the United States have moved to authorize auction of the domain names and distribution of the auction proceeds. In opposing the motion, Zuccarini asserts that the proposed auction site, the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Domain Conference & Expo, raises a conflict of interest because Howard Neu, an attorney who represented Zuccarini in the underlying action filed by Office Depot, is a co-owner and organizer of T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Moving parties DS Holdings and the Unites States do not address this assertion in their reply. DS Holdings and the United States are therefore directed, within ten days of the date of this order, to file a response to Zuccarini’s contentions regarding conflict of interest.

Of course this is probably all a moot point anyway. The TRAFFIC show organizers have gone on record saying they want nothing to do with auctioning off Zuccarini’s domain names. Given that TRAFFIC auctions are actually run by Latona’s, and merely use TRAFFIC as a venue, it’s likely that Neu didn’t even know about the plans to auction off the domains at TRAFFIC before he was dragged into it thanks to the court filings.

Elsewhere in the Zuccarini saga, Zuccarini has filed a response (pdf) to Network Solutions’ motion to dismiss his lawsuit over the sale of expired domain names he owned that were later handed to a receiver.