Google bolsters +1 domain name coverage with .me purchases.

Google has purchased the domain name Plus.me, updated whois records show.

The domain name was apparently purchased in November of last year, but remained under whois privacy protection until today.

The purchase appears to be related to Google’s +1 tool (pronounced “plus one”), as the company also purchase plusone.me at the same time.

Plus.me now has Google nameservers but does not yet resolve.

The sales to Google were certainly a welcome surprise for the sellers, who could not possibly have predicted that Google would launch a service with a name matching their domains.

Domain owner wins case but panelist’s rationale is troublesome.

The owner of the generic domain name Commentary.com has successfully defended his domain name from The American Jewish Committee (AJC) in a UDRP.

AJC has operated Commentary Magazine since 1945, thus its interest in the domain name.

The owner of Commentary.com registered it all the way back in 1997. He immediately started using the site to publish executive summaries of Chinese commentaries in English. After a few years he suspended this activity due to lack of subscriptions, and used the domain name off an on through the years for various purposes. But now it’s just a holding page.

AJC has offered to purchase the domain name on two occasions, both times rebuffed because the owner said he planned to use the domain name again shortly for a new project.

Given these circumstances it’s no surprise that AJC lost. But I’m disappointed in how panelist Charles A. Kuechenmeister determined the case.

Kuechenmesiter wrote a lengthy discussion of whether or not the domain owner had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

To me this is a slam dunk: the owner registered it back in 1997 and began using the site. Just because he isn’t using it now is less relevant. In fact, that AJC told the panel that “Respondent has not used the Domain Name since it became registered in 1997″ is blatantly false. That should be grounds for reverse domain name hijacking.

Yet the panelist gave some credence to AJC’s arguments, writing:

The Panel notes with concern the extended period of inactivity, or at least lack of substance or actual content, on the web site resolving from the Domain Name and is hesitant to find that Respondent has demonstrated rights and legitimate interest in it in the face of such extended inactivity. Actual commentary appears to have been presented only from 1997 until early 2001

Ultimately the Kuechenmeister finds that the domain name owner does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. But in doing so he cites the owner turning down two offers for the domain from AJC, writing:

Had Respondent not been seriously planning and preparing to use the Domain Name for the purposes stated, it is difficult to imagine that it would have passed up an opportunity to be paid some $27,500 for it.

We’ve seen panelists “appraise” the value of domain names before, using it against domain name owners. Had the domain owner said “I’m planning to use the domain name, but for $100,000 I’ll abandon those plans and sell to you”, would the panelist have found in favor of AJC?

The ultimate decision against AJC was correct, but the panelists’ rationale concerns me.

Yes. The question is how much.

VeriSign is in the process of trying to renew its contract with ICANN to run .net. It includes significant price increases similar to its current contract.

Should we expect VeriSign to ask for continuing .com price increases as well? Of course.

On the company’s recent investor conference call, analyst Todd Raker of Deutsche Bank AG asked:

And can you talk about — as you went through the .net renewal process, are there any takeaways that we can apply to our thinking about the .com process coming up?

VeriSign CEO Mark McLaughlin responded:

Todd, we’re in the .net renewal process. I just want to make that clear. We’re in the midst of the 30-day comment period that ICANN has for the negotiated terms between VeriSign and ICANN. We can expect that contract renewed by July 1. I think, the highest level — the terms of the .net contract and the .com contract are almost identical. Really, only difference between the 2 is that for .com, in addition to negotiating — in addition to getting renewed with ICANN, we have to seek Department of Commerce approval.

My guess is that VeriSign tries to renew the .com contract under generally the same terms as it’s last contract, including 7% price increases. Maybe it will ask for the ability to raise the prices every year, instead of 4 of 6 years.

Company files trademark application.

Add .life to the potential pool of new top level domain names that may come online next year.

Fresnel Web Services, LLC filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for “.life” earlier this week. The company is based in Newburyport, Massachusetts, but I was unable to find any information about it online.

The application covers “Registration and management of sponsored domain names on globabl (sic) networks”.

Nevermind that the USPTO doesn’t grant trademark rights for top level domain names. It’s also a lot cheaper to file a trademark for a $325 fee than to come up with the half million or so necessary to get a new TLD off the ground.

Still, I think this domain could come to fruition. It would be good for a number of social networking, photo sharing, and similar applications.

And to send a lot of misdirected traffic to Life.

Full Tilt Poker wins more typo domains through arbitration.

Wouldn’t it have been ironic had Full Tilt Poker not been in possession of FullTiltPoker.com when it won rights to several typos?

Pocket Kings Limited, which owns Full Tilt Poker, picked up 3 domain names through UDRP this week. That makes a dozen total typo domain names it has won in April.

The latest three were fulltiltepoker.com, fulltiltpokar.net, and fultiltpocker.net.

Most of the typos are of the company’s dot com domain name, which was briefly seized by the U.S. government earlier this month. The government later turned the domain name back over to the company with the stipulation that U.S. players be forbidden to play.

The company also won FullTiltPoker.co this month.

It would have been strange if you were able to visit the poker web site by misspelling it, but not if you typed it correctly.