Microsoft recovers Xbox Kinect domain names.

Last month I wrote about how Microsoft had filed seven UDRP cases at the end of December for Kinect domain names.

Today rulings in four of the cases were handed down and Microsoft won each of them.

That includes wwwKinect.com, a typo of Kinect.com. Microsoft didn’t own Kinect.com at the time it filed the case, but has since purchased it from a marketing group.

The company also won MicrosoftKinect.com, KinectGameStore.com, KinectWorld.com, and KinectPeople.com.

You’d think that the company would have done some proactive work, at least on MicrosoftKinect.com, before announcing the product.

Consider yourself forewarned if you own any domain names with “Kinect” in them. Especially if they are parked or offered for sale.

Ad shows a domain I own.

[Updated: see update and probable answer at bottom.] You’ve probably come across a “re-targeted” ad on the web before. One day I searched for Puma shoes at Zappos. Later that day I visited a web site with an ad for the exact shoes I had searched for on Zappos. They’re highly targeted (and useful) ads.

But I came across one the other day that has me puzzled:

Needless to say, this ad caught my attention as I own ExecutivePay.com.

But how did the company cookie a page that shows what domains I own? Or did it just cookie a domain lookup?

I bought the domain on a drop a while back, so I thought perhaps it was originally at Register.com and I had been cookied there before transferring it to another registrar. But it turns out the domain name was previously at Network Solutions.

The text on the ad doesn’t necessarily suggest I already own the domain name. Instead it could be triggered based on a domain lookup I performed somewhere. For example, I may have looked up the whois or availability on a domain name and got cookied. Now Register.com is suggesting I register the domain before it’s too late (which of course it already is).

If advertising cookies are picking up your whois searches, that’s a problem.

Any other thoughts on where I might have picked up this cookie?

[Update: I recall now that I have done some lookups at Register.com recently to see how Afternic's premium listings look. It's likely how I got the cookied, which is much better than a third party whois passing it along. Technically the domain was "available" since it can be purchased as a premium domain at Register.]

Recent domain name registrations hint to new promotion.

Amazon.com currently offers free ground shipping on purchases of $25 or more and free two day shipping to members of its paid “Amazon Prime” promotion.

But is the company launching a new free three day shipping option? Some recent domain name registrations suggest this may be the case.

Last Friday the domain names Amazon3Day.com, Free3Day.com, and Free3Ship.com were registered by DNStination, Inc. DNStination is an intermediary frequently used by large companies to register domain names. The company has registered domain names on behalf of Amazon in the past.

Free 3 day shipping seems like a great promotion. If it only applies to orders of $25 or more then I don’t think it will cannibalize the Amazon Prime program.

But at this point the only suggestion that this may be coming are these three domain names. So stay tuned.

.Jobs changes could be done without the .jobs TLD.

Over the weekend I read The Washington Post’s article about the liberalization of the .jobs TLD and what this means for companies such as Monster and Career Builder.

Last week 40,000 .jobs web sites went live for just about every major profession (e.g. nurse.jobs) and city (e.g. austin.jobs). Companies that are members of Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) can post jobs for free on the job boards, which are basically auto generated job sites.

Those quoted in the article made it out as if this is ground breaking because of the top level domain name .jobs and it couldn’t be achieved any other way. But like many ideas for new TLDs, what’s happening here could have just as easily happened on a standard .com domain name. In fact, it may have been easier.

Are you telling me members of SHRM couldn’t have just created a .com web site and done the same thing (free listings)? If the radical thing is that it’s backed by large companies and they can post wanted ads for free, that’s nothing you need .jobs for.

Is there search value to nurse.jobs? No more than nurse.jobs.com or even jobs.com/nurse. In fact, I think nurse.jobs is worse because search engine optimization and linking will be required for each .jobs domain. People will also have to understand that they can end a URL with .jobs. If you just focus on one domain or brand you can get better rankings.

Ironically, the biggest short term winner behind this change is one of the companies that is fighting it: Monster. Monster owns jobs.com, which is sure to get a lot of traffic to URLs such as nurse.jobs.com and austin.jobs.com if .jobs takes off.

Judge calls for an end to lengthy domain name battle.

United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has said enough is enough in a domain name lawsuit filed by John Zuccarini.

Zuccarini filed the lawsuit after a court appointed receiver failed to renew domain names of his that were seized to settle a cybersquatting judgment. The domain names were at Network Solutions and subsequently auctioned off on NameJet when they expired. One of the domain names was bid up over $50,000, although I don’t know that the winning bidder ever paid.

Defendants NameJet, Network Solutions, and VeriSign each filed motions to dismiss that the judge granted on January 14. Zuccarini then filed an appeal on this ruling that the judge denied because he said the appeal introduced completely new arguments. Brinkema had harsh words for Zuccarini in declining his appeal.

“Zuccarini has already wasted quite enough of the parties’ and this Court’s time and resources in responding to his frivolous claims,” Brikema wrote.

Although Zuccarini can file another appeal, the judge reminded him that he “is again placed on notice that filing a frivolous appeal, or further frivolous motions on this Court, could result in the imposition of sanctions…”