Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying archives for the month of "January 2015"

  • Puppy dogs for sale on GoDaddy parody site

    1. BY - Jan 29, 2015
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 1 Comment

    Someone is having fun with GoDaddy’s withdrawn commercial…and doing it with GoDaddy services.

    GoDaddy won’t run its controversial Journey Home commercial during the Super Bowl on Sunday. The ad featured a site called Gabby’s Goldens that sold dogs online. It drew the ire of pet lovers and advocates everywhere.

    Yet someone is having some fun with it, and using GoDaddy’s services to boot.

    GoDaddy registered GabbysGoldens.com ahead of the commercial. Another customer just registered GabbysGoldens.org and created a website using GoDaddy’s Online Store service.

    At the URL gabbysgoldens.org/products/buddy-coming-soon, you can “Reserve your first choice of this litter” for $699. (The product is out of stock.) Click here to continue reading…

  • LeadPages is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

    1. BY - Jan 29, 2015
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 3 Comments

    WIPO panel finds that lead generation technology company abused UDRP.

    A three person World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found the company behind LeadPages.net to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a cybersquatting complaint.

    Avenue 81, Inc., which offers lead generation software and tools at LeadPages.net, filed a cybersquatting complaint against Karl Payne, the owner of LeadPages.com.

    Payne registered the .com domain name in 2004. LeadPages.net was formed and its domain name registered in late 2012. Obviously, they chose the .net domain name because the .com was taken.

    After first trying to acquire the domain name for as much as $15,000, LeadPages.net filed the complaint with WIPO. The company argued that, since his most recent renewal of the domain name, Payne had switched the use of the domain name from inactive to promoting a service to take advantage of misguided traffic. Click here to continue reading…

  • GoDaddy’s Super Bowl ad switcheroo: planned or not?

    1. BY - Jan 29, 2015
    2. Domain Registrars
    3. 3 Comments

    GoDaddy, once again, is getting a lot of press for its Super Bowl ad. How much of it was planned?

    If you pay for a Super Bowl commercial and no one talks about it before or after the big game, you got ripped off.

    GoDaddy discovered this many years ago and has mastered the art of getting extra impressions of its ads and Monday morning water cooler talk. GoDaddy’s ads are often criticized and sometimes ranked as the “worst” ads on the Super Bowl. Yet “worst” is a heck of a lot better than the middle-of-the-road commercials that no one talks about.

    This week it debuted its planned Super Bowl ad on Today. The controversial ad spoofed other lost dog commercials. This ad ended with an unexpected twist — A GoDaddy customer was happy when the dog returned, because she had just sold him through her website.

    People talked about the ad. A lot. In bad terms. By the end of the day, GoDaddy CEO Blake Irving said the company would not air the ad on Sunday.

    Given GoDaddy’s previous advertising antics, the initial thought that popped into many minds was if this was a planned stunt.

    Was it? I’m a bit torn.

    GoDaddy had to predict the backlash the commercial would cause. Selling puppies? On the internet? Yes, taken in the context of the commercials it spoofs, you can give it a laugh. Yet the commercial suggests that people can use GoDaddy’s web presence services to do things that people hate. Not exactly the best message, and perhaps where the commercial really goes awry.

    If this commercial aired five years ago, I’d have no doubt that it was all a planned publicity stunt. But there’s a new CEO at the helm of GoDaddy who doesn’t seem to gravitate toward the all-publicity-is-good-publicity mantra.

    More importantly, GoDaddy is in the process of going public. Does it really want to rock the boat with negative publicity at this point?

    GoDaddy has once again gotten people talking about it. This time, I’m not so sure if it’s going exactly according to script.

  • .Space wins this week’s new TLD releases

    1. BY - Jan 29, 2015
    2. Uncategorized
    3. 2 Comments

    .Space tops in registrations with about 1,700 on first day.

    When it comes to most registrations, .space appears to have topped the list of this week’s new top level domain name launches.

    That doesn’t come as a big surprise since it’s the most generic (and lowest priced) domain of the lot. Here’s a run down of this week’s new TLD launches, starting with the most registrations…

    1. According to namestat, .Space added 1,700 domain names in the zone yesterday, bringing its total to 1,784. Most domain name registrars were offering the domain names for about $10.

    2. Rightside’s .band found some musicians, as 720 new domains were added to the zone. That brings the total to 776.

    3. I’m a bit unclear on .我爱你, Chinese for “I Love You”. Its GA date was yesterday, but, perhaps due to time zones, it appears that the big bump came on Tuesday night’s zone files. It has 538 in the zone.

    4. Apparently, not many people died yesterday. The .RIP domain name added just 270 registrations, bringing its total to 348. A number of brands picked up .RIP domains as a protective measure.

    5. .Ryukyu, a geo domain name for Okinawa, had the slowest start of all domains released yesterday. It picked up just 84 names, bringing the total to 143.

  • Owner of Good.com sues business that uses Good.co

    1. BY - Jan 28, 2015
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 8 Comments

    Company miffed that consumers may be confused by Good.co vs. Good.com.

    Good.com

    Good vs. Good

    Good Technology Corporation, a mobility services company that uses the domain name Good.com, has sued (pdf) a career app and social network company using the name Good.co.

    I suspect Good Technology Corporation is facing an uphill battle here. It uses a dictionary term with broad usage, and the arguments it makes in its case seem rather weak to me.

    For example:

    Defendant should have performed a trademark search before adopting the name Good.co. Had it done so, it would have discovered the GOOD Marks and that Good has been registering and using the GOOD Marks since 2001.

    Apparently, the plaintiff doesn’t see a difference between the word “Good” and naming your company “Good.co”. The two are very different things. Click to continue reading…