New plan gives rights to existing domain registrants and offers lower pricing.

Nominet, the registry behind the .uk namespace for the United Kingdom, has put forth a new plan to offer second level domains to the public. Currently, registrations are only available at the third level.

The group’s previous proposal to offer domains such as example.uk instead of example.co.uk was shelved in February after a number of stakeholders lodged complaints about the program.

The earlier proposal wouldn’t have given priority to existing third level .uk domain holders. It also had a planned wholesale cost of £20 per domain per year, which is about ten times the cost of a third level registration.

The new plan, now open to community feedback, would give priority to the owner of a third level domain. If you own example.co.uk, .org.uk, etc. you’d get first dibs on example.uk. In the event that more than one of the same third level domains are registered (example.co.uk and example.org.uk), the holder of the oldest registered domain of the string would have senior rights.

Also, the price will be about £5.

This still places a burden on existing domain registrants, especially those with large portfolios. But it may strengthen the overall value of the .uk namespace, which will help domain investors that own .uk domains.

I don’t own any .uk domains, so I’m curious to hear from those that will be affected if this proposal becomes reality.

Hardware cooperative makes shaky claims in UDRP against webhosting company.

I think the best way to start this UDRP analysis is with a couple screenshots.

First, here’s a shot of hardware cooperative True Value’s web site:

Now, here’s a screenshot for TrueValueWeb.com, which offers webhosting and internet technology services:

True Value filed a UDRP against TrueValueWeb.com and made some head-scratching assertions.

First, it claims that TrueValueWeb.com might cause confusion because it offers services similar to those of the hardware cooperative.

Selling saws and air conditioners is similar to selling webhosting?

True Value made this claim based on services it offers to its cooperative members, who are the many store owners using the True Value name. That seems like quite a stretch.

Second, True Value claimed that “the website found at the name presents the same coloration (i.e., red, black and white) – in connection with the term “TRUE VALUE WEB” – as is utilized by Complainant with respect to its mark.”

After comparing the screenshots (including ones from before the complaint was filed), I simply can’t figure out what this claim is based on.

Moreover, it appears True Value may have made a cease & desist mistake all to common in the rapid fire C&D business: it sent the wrong C&D letter.

According to the respondent, he received a cease & desist letter from True Value but it referenced a completely different domain name than TrueValueWeb.com.

The panel found that True Value failed to prove proven that the respondent didn’t have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Although it said it was not issuing an opinion on laches, it did write:

…the seven-and-a-half-year lag between disputed domain name registration and filing of the Complaint simply bolstered Respondent’s contention that he operates the name in connection with a bona fide offering of services.

Indeed, if there ever is a case to apply the doctrine of laches, its where a legitimate business would be destroyed by the complainant’s tardy actions.

True Value was represented by Merchant & Gould P.C. The respondent was represented by Bret S. Moore.

Microsoft registers domains previously used by Citadel malware.

Microsoft has registered a number of domain names to thwart a cybercrime ring credited with over a half billion dollars in financial fraud.

The action aims to thwart Citadel malware, which installs keyloggers on users’ machines. The malware and crime ring had over 1,000 botnets.

Although Microsoft’s press release about its actions against Citadel doesn’t mention domains, an attachment to the lawsuit filed against the perpetrators includes a list of over 4,000 domain names linked to Citadel.

Service providers appear to have already suspended many of the registered domain names. But some of the domains on the list were unregistered. Microsoft has proactively registered these domains to its “Digital Crime Unit”.

In response to an inquiry from Domain Name Wire, Richard Boscovich, Assistant General Counsel, Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit wrote:

The other domains were previously documented as being used by Citadel, but the cybercriminals had stopped using them and many had expired registrations. Since these domains were previously connected to the threat, and available, we registered them as a precautionary measure.

Here’s an example of a whois of one of the proactively registered domains, h5d5c53.com:

You can see a full list of the 4,000+ domains here (pdf).

Panel believe complainant was trying to use arbitration as a “short cut” to acquire domain.

Domain name attorney Zak Muscovitch has helped the owner of ClevelandCyclewerks.ca save his domain name in a cybersquatting arbitration case. Not only that, but the arbitration panel found the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking and ordered it to pay $5,000.

.ca disputes are subject to the Canadian Internet Registration Authority Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP). Although rare, panels can levy fines against complainants for reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) under the CDRP. This differs from the standard UDRP that applies to .com and many other top level domains. In UDRP there’s no monetary penalty for RDNH.

The panel wrote that “there is a very strong suggestion that the Complainant has sought to use this process as a short cut to acquire the Domain Name”.

This isn’t the first time Muscovitch has won an award in a CDRP case. In fact, he represented the respondent in the first such case in which a penalty was levied.

The case for Yu.com was much more complicated than it should have been.

All the facts of the UDRP for Yu.com point to an slam dunk, open-and-shut victory for the respondent.

Yet getting to that determination – a win for the respondent – was apparently anything but simple.

Michael has opined a bit on the case, and I’m going to share my analysis.

First, let’s discuss how this was a dead-on-arrival case.

The complainant, Two Way NV/SA, stated that it had plans to bring to market an app with the name YU, but had not yet launched it or commenced commercialization.

Two Way had managed to get a trademark for its non-existent app, but even that was filed for and granted after the owner of Yu.com acquired the domain in 2006.

So the case was pretty simple in favor of the respondent.

But what happened after the case was filed is quiet interesting.

Two Way wanted to disqualify two of the respondent’s suggested panelists on the three person panel.

First, it wanted to disqualify The Hon Neil Anthony Brown Q.C. on the grounds that he is requested by the defendant’s attorney, Ari Goldberger, in a number of cases. Two Way argued that Brown thus had an economic incentive to find in Goldberger’s favor.

It’s true that Brown hears a lot of Goldberger’s cases. It’s also true that Brown takes a reading of the UDRP that, on balance, leans more toward respondents than many other panelists.

While I think Two Way’s request was uncalled for and should have been dismissed, that’s when things get zany: Two Way also asked to have another of the respondent’s nominees (who is unnamed) dismissed because he or she was of the same nationality as Goldberger and was an American citizen, whereas Goldberger’s law firm is in America.

If complainants could strike a panelist because they’re based in the U.S., that would certainly turn UDRP on its head!

The case continued with panelists Mark Ming-Jen Yang and Andrew F. Christie joining Brown…at least for a while.

Now, if you consider that Brown’s interpretation of UDRP leans a bit to respondents, then Christie’s leans quite a bit to complainants. Christie is the one who has tried to twist the language of the third prong of UDRP – registered AND used in bad faith – to be registered OR used in bad faith.

Panelist Yang is a bit of an unknown. He has heard about 40 cases dating back to 2003. He has found in favor of the complainant in all cases except one. The one case in favor of the respondent was a three person panel.

What happened between the three panelists over the six months the case was decided is not exactly known.

But Yang definitely wasn’t on board with the other two.

In the closing days of the Panel’s deliberations, Presiding Panelist Yang indicated that he did not wish to be associated with membership of this Panel which is issuing a majority decision, and that he had nothing more to say.

I believe this is unprecedented.

A member of a three person panel can disagree with the other two panelists. All he or she has to do is file a dissenting opinion.

But Yang literally walked away.

Further compounding the mystery is that Christie and Brown, while coming to the same ultimate decision in the case, disagreed on how to get there. Both panelists submitted their own opinions for each of the second and third prongs of the case. Thus, it would have been perfectly acceptable for Yang to submit his own detailed opinion on the case.

What should have been a simple case turned into a six month ordeal and a blemish on World Intellectual Property Organization.