Judge says waver to jury trial in employment agreement is valid.

The case of Monte Cahn v. Oversee.net, et al is scheduled to go to trial next month.

Each side has listed witnesses they might want to bring to the stand, ranging from Jeff Kupietzky
to Mike Berkens to NameDrive USA.

But they won’t be arguing in front of a jury, at least for claims related to breach of contract of a management incentive plan.

The judge in the case has ruled that a jury waver provision in Cahn’s employment agreement is valid and therefore the case will be argued in front of the court rather than a jury.

A motion for summary judgment by Oversee.net to toss the breach of contract claim over the incentive plan is still pending.

In other documents recently filed by Oversee.net, the company continues to claim that none of the goals outlined in the inventive plan were met. It also states that Oversee’s overall performance during the three-year period that covered the plan ranged from one-half to one-quarter of the expectations that prevailed when the plan was contemplated.

Cahn disagrees with Oversee’s assessment, arguing he is owed money under the plan.

Them’s fightin’ words!

Well this is getting interesting.

Earlier this month a Texas court ordered ICANN to stay a UDRP case for FunnyGames.com. ICANN responded by saying that it had no authority to stay a UDRP proceeding and that the court had no jurisdiction to order it to do so.

The court disagreed.

ICANN subsequently said that it informed World Intellectual Property Organization — the UDRP provider where the case was filed — of the court decision. But it reiterated that it has no power to halt the proceedings.

In response, the receiver in the case writes about “ICANN thumbing its nose at the Court” and is asking the judge to find ICANN in in contempt:

“ICANN did not make even a good-faith attempt to comply with the Court Orders.

“ICANN has repeatedly argued (unpersuasively and incorrectly) that it lacks the authority to stop the ICANN UDRP. [Id.] Assuming, arguendo, that ICANN were correct and the Court simply misunderstood the law or forgot to review the ICANN declaration (as ICANN strangely suggests), were ICANN to instruct WIPO to stop the ICANN UDRP, WIPO would presumably disregard the instruction anyway. Thus, ICANN’s efforts in that hypothetical case would prove futile, but no harm to ICANN would occur.

“So, in an effort to show this Court a good-faith attempt to comply with the Court Orders, one would assume that ICANN would have simply sent a letter to WIPO instructing WIPO to stop the ICANN UDRP (and not care whether would WIPO would follow or disregard the instruction). But ICANN did not act in good faith. Instead, ICANN sent a letter to WIPO not instructing it to do anything, but merely “notifying WIPO of the Court’s order that ICANN ‘stay and abate’ the UDRP proceeding on www.funnygames.com.” [Docket No. 741, at Exhibit 1 (letter from ICANN to WIPO).]

“Furthermore, in the ICANN letter, ICANN also “requests” that WIPO keep ICANN informed of some items. [Id.] Can ICANN make a request [underlined] like that to WIPO without the authority to enforce [underlined] that request? Apparently, ICANN believes so! So, if that were the case, why couldn’t ICANN have likewise “requested” that WIPO stay and abate the ICANN UDRP? The answer is because ICANN wrongly believes it appropriate merely to respond to a Federal District Court, “I would prefer not to.” (See generally, Herman Melville, Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street, Melville House Publishing, Brooklyn, New York, 2010 reprint). This demonstrates ICANN’s failure to act in good faith and further supports why the Court should hold ICANN in contempt.”

Domain registrar continues to apply for patents but hasn’t gone on the offensive yet.

Will GoDaddy’s patent strategy change now that it has taken an investment from three private equity giants?

It’s an important question for the domain name and web hosting industries because of the size of the company’s patent war chest.

A search with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows 65 issued patents for The Go Daddy Group and close to 200 pending.

These patents cover a broad range of technologies and business processes, ranging from whois privacy services to domain name suggestion spinning and domain hijack protection.

But to date the company hasn’t sued any competitors for patent infringement.

Karl Fazio, Associate General Counsel – Patents for Go Daddy told Domain Name Wire that might not change despite the new investment by KKR, Silver Lake and Technology Crossover Ventures.

“We do have plenty of patents in our portfolio that are powerful and could be monetized if we chose to do that,” he explained, but added that he’s not aware of any plans to go on the offense.

“The new partnership [investment] doesn’t change the fundamental principles of why you have a robust patent portfolio,” he said.

The patent portfolio protects the company’s products and gives it “room to operate”. A strong patent portfolio also discourages other companies from suing it for patent infringement.

One company has tried. In 2006 Web.com sued Go Daddy for patent infringement. The settlement in 2009 included a cross-licensing agreement of the companies’ patent portfolios. The lawsuit was settled before Web.com acquired both Register.com and Network Solutions.

Although Fazio is not aware of any plans to go on the offense, you shouldn’t expect the company’s patent filing machine to slow down any time soon.

“As we are developing new products and services we intend to aggressively protect in the patent space our new technology,” said Fazio.

Tucows’ reseller network now has over 100 additional domains to choose from.

One of the key reasons Tucows bought domain name registrar EPAG back in August was to bolster its offering of country code domain names (ccTLD).

Today it announced the first phase of its integration of ccTLDs carried by EPAG, adding over 100 new ccTLDs to its OpenSRS reseller platform. It will add more next year.

A lot of registrars I talk to tell me they see an immediate registration lift when they add new ccTLDs but the one-by-one integration is a pain. Tucows has “bought” and easier way of integrating.

ccTLDs have a multitude of policies around expiration, residency, etc. OpenSRS has published a very helpful chart comparing each top level domain.

Big buyers get good deals on domain names.

Some notable names made domain purchases this week for smart prices. All of these sales were at Afternic unless otherwise noted.

Bayer AG bought ResponsibleUse.com for only $895 at Sedo. It’s a good domain for information about prescription drug abuse.

Sharp Design, which had been using SharpDesignWebsites.com, shortened its domain to SharpDesign.com for just $2,000.

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R – TN) got MarshaBlackburn.com for $2,188, or at least it appears that way. The domain was bought by political marketing company CampaignSolutions.com

Gym chain Life Time Fitness bought MyHealthCheck.com for $4,000 at Sedo.

Cleaning services company Schuh’s Services shortened its domain from WeCleanItUp.com to WeCleanup.com for $1,552.

Enterprise Rent-a-Car bought eCar.biz for $5,000 at Sedo. The company has a trademark for the term ‘eCar’ for car rental. It already owns eCar.net and eCar.us but doesn’t own eCar.com. Given this extremely high price for a .biz, it appears the company is willing to pay to shore up its brand.

LPL Financial bought WomenInvest.com for $1,288.

Kensington Tours picked up the shorter URL ktours.com for $3,788.

Healthcare company Mercy paid $2,500 for MercyClinic.com.

Christian book company Harvest House Publishers purchased StoryofyourLife.com for $2,588.

Human resources company Empower Benefits, which uses the domain name mpowerbenefits.com and doesn’t own empowerbenefits.com, bought PowerBenefits.com for $1,688.

Finally, it appears domain name giant GoDaddy may have made an end user purchase itself. BuildYourOnlineBusiness.com sold for $1,188 and the whois shows GoDaddy. GoDaddy sometimes is listed for domains that are purchased through its site but “in limbo”, but this one is listed differently. Given the topic there’s a good chance the domain registrar is the actual buyer.