Verisign wants patent for “Searchable Web Whois”

Company files patent application for improved whois searching across multiple registries.

Verisign has filed a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a “searchable web whois”. The application was filed in 2012 and just published today.

The patent application suggests that current whois search, especially across multiple registries, is hard. It claims that current services only search a single registry per search request, it’s difficult to index whois records in real time, it’s hard to make sense of whois data compared to other types of indexed documents, and parsing words in domain names is a challenge.

While these things are difficult, I imagine some whois services will argue that they’re doing a pretty good job of it.

The application goes on to explain Verisign’s better system. I can’t quite figure out how it solves all of the problems the company identifies, at least any better than what other companies have already done. Perhaps this is one of those patents with a few unique claims. You can be the judge: Click here to continue reading… owner can keep domain name despite not responding to UDRP

Owner of loses case against

Language instruction service Chinesepod Limited, which uses the domain name, has lost a UDRP against the owner of

It’s a case of a “typo” also being a common word.

The owner of didn’t respond to the UDRP, but ChinesePod didn’t convince a World Intellectual Property panelist of the merits of its case. Although the parked page at consists of lots of links to language instruction, ChinesePod made an amusing assertion and shot itself in the foot.

The company said that, because a Google search for ChinesePot returned results related to Chinese porcelains and cooking recipes, this was somehow indicative of bad faith by the domain name owner.

Surely this assertion was somehow lost in translation?

The panelist also dismissed ChinesePod’s allegation that using whois privacy is a sign of bad faith, and that the respondent knew of the complainant when it registered the domain name.

The issue of Chinese Marijuana didn’t appear to be discussed in the case.

Orient Express Travel Group engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Australian company didn’t disclose prior purchase attempt and its rights post-dated domain registration.

A three person World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found Australian travel company Orient Express Travel Group to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

The travel company filed an aUDRP against the domain name It uses the domain name

The panel found that Orient Express Travel Group was less-than-forthcoming in its aUDRP filing. It didn’t disclose that it first attempted to buy the domain name before filing for arbitration.

Also, its case was based on common law rights that the panel determined are very recent (if existent), and postdate’s registration date by about six years.

The complainant was represented by Norgate McLean Dolphin, and the respondent was represented by Cooper Mills Lawyers.

Stolen domain name returned to owner in UDRP

Panel orders transferred back to its previous owner.

An Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) panel has ordered the domain name be returned to its previous owner, who said the domain name was stolen from him.

In the dispute, Complainant Chiu Tsen Hu said he purchased the domain name at Sedo in 2006 for $6,009. He has used it in various ways since then, including to promote his domain names for sale. He alleged that the domain name was stolen from his eNom account in February 2015 and transferred to GoDaddy.

The new whois record for the domain name was just slightly modified from the original, including an apparent unit in the same complex in which the complainant lives. The complainant said that unit does not exist.

The panelist was a bit torn about if UDRP was the correct mechanism to return the domain name. Although this is a case of theft, the panelist determined that, should the complainant prove all three elements of the UDRP, then the domain name should be transferred.

Judge denies motion to strike UDRP cases from pleadings

Plaintiff asked judge to forbid information about its two UDRP losses over the same domain to be used in pleadings.

United States Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson has denied a motion to strike prior UDRPs from pleadings in a cybersquatting lawsuit filed over

Joseph Carpenter has lost two UDRPs against the domain name After the second loss, he filed an in rem cybersquatting lawsuit against the domain name

The current owner of the domain, Original Web Ventures, responded to the suit and made its own counterclaims. Original Web Ventures is asking for the plaintiff’s trademark to be cancelled and $100,000 for reverse domain name hijacking. The response mentioned the two failed UDRPs, and pointed out that one of them was filed against Original Web Ventures. This, it claimed, shows that some of Carpenter’s assertions in his original suit are false. Click here to continue reading…