Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"

  • Panelist digs up key fact in UDRP

    1. BY - Apr 17, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Intent-to-use trademark does in complainant.

    Neal & Massy Holdings, a business conglomerate operating in the Carribean, has lost a UDRP it filed against the domain name is owned by domain investor Gregory Ricks.

    Ricks defended himself without counsel in the UDRP. He made a good defense, pointing out that the domain name is a dictionary word that he registered 14 years ago.

    He overlooked one key thing, though. Panelist Paul M. DeCicco found this key detail himself, and denied the case in part because of it.

    It turns out Neal & Massy recently filed an intent-to-use trademark application for “Massy”. So while it claimed to be commonly referred to as Massy, this intent-to-use application dispels that notion:

    In filing the ITU application Complainant thereby admits that it has not yet used the MASSY mark in commerce, but instead intends to use the mark at some point in the future. See 15 U.S. Code § 1051(1)b. The unavoidable conclusion that Complainant had no rights in MASSY when it filed its Complaint is further supported by the fact that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name over 14 years before Complainant’s UDRP filing but Complainant did not complain about the domain name until now.

    DeCicco declined to find reverse domain name hijacking.

    Neal & Massy UDRP for

  • CTIA kills’s bid for .mobile domain name

    1. BY - Apr 14, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    International Chamber of Commerce decision eliminates’s plans to run the .mobile top level domain name.

    CTIACTIA, a trade group representing mobile phone carriers, has successfully objected to’s application to run the .mobile top level domain name domain name.

    CTIA filed Community Objections against applications filed by and Dish DBS to run .mobile.

    Both applicants originally planned to operated .mobile as a “Closed Generic”, meaning no one other than Amazon or Dish would be able to register second level domain names. This would prevent Verizon from registering, for example.

    The case was filed over a year ago. While most other community objections to new top level domain names have been decided already, this case was stayed multiple times as ICANN wrestled with the question of how to handle “closed generics”.

    Since filing its application, has declared that it no longer plans to run .mobile as a closed top level domain name. However, it hasn’t filed an amendment to its application to state this change.

    With this in mind, CTIA wanted the community objection panelist to continue staying a decision. Yet Amazon rolled the dice by asking the panel to decide the case on its existing merits. Amazon appears to have made a bad move.

    Amazon’s application for .mobile is technically dead right now thanks to the International Chamber of Commerce decision. The case against Dish’s .mobile application is still pending.

    CTIA did not object to a third application for .mobile filed by a third applicant, Donuts. Donuts plans to offer the domain name to everyone.

  • Wolfram doesn’t use computation in URS dispute

    1. BY - Apr 14, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    A lot of brain power missed the connection.


    Wolfram Research, Inc. has lost a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) case for and, and the case is noteworthy for a couple reasons.

    First, the domain names were owned by two different people. One of the whois records has privacy on it, and companies often file UDRP cases against domains that they think the same person owns. But in this case the domains were at two different registrars, which makes me wonder what Wolfram was thinking.

    What’s more interesting is how National Arbitration Forum handles such a case. The forum’s supplemental rules state that the first person to respond to the case is the respondent and the other domain is kicked out. Seems like a perverse incentive for responding. In this case the claim against was kicked out.

    Second, Wolfram lost this case in part because it didn’t connect the trademarks it was claiming between their registrant (Wolfram Group LLC) and the complainant Wolfram Research, Inc. I’m sure they’re connected, but you have to show the connection to the panelist.

  • Uniregistry Whois tells you why a domain isn’t available

    1. BY - Apr 11, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 13 Comments

    Whois explains if domain is on name collision list.

    UniregistryOne of the most frustrating challenges of pre-registering new top level domain names is having the registrar return a search “not available”.

    You end up asking yourself “why isn’t it available?” The first instinct is to blame the registry for holding back what appears to be a good domain name.

    Odds are that’s not the case. Instead, the domain name is temporarily blocked due to name collisions. These domains should be available later, but not at launch.

    Finding out why a name is blocked is a bit of a chore. Most of the time if you look up the domain in Whois you’ll get a message that it’s reserved by the registry. That doesn’t tell you if it was reserved because it’s a premium name or if it’s on the name collision list.

    For most TLDs, the only way to find out if it’s on the name collision list is to view the name collision file for the domain. Find the registry agreement, click on “List of SLDs to Block”, then do a search for the name.

    I was pleasantly surprised when looking up .link domains this week to see that Uniregistry has made it easier to find out why a domain is blocked. This is what you see when you do a Whois on a name collision domain:


    This is a smart move. Lots of people unfamiliar with the fine print of the new TLD program assume registries are holding back tens of thousands of the best names. They’re actually being forced to do this. The name collision message in Whois is good for PR.

  • hit with UDRP

    1. BY - Apr 11, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Generic word targeted with UDRP filing.

    The generic domain name has been hit with a UDRP at World Intellectual Property Organization.

    The case was filed by Dune Holdings Limited, a London-based seller of shoes and accessories. The company uses the web address, so it’s no wonder that it wants the shorter domain name.

    When I search for “dune” on Google the first five results are about the science fiction novel and movie. Of course, dune is also a mound of sand, as in a sand dune.

    The domain name currently has Tucows domain privacy turned on. The most recent non-privacy whois record showed an owner in California. is parked with DomainSponsor, and I don’t see any ads referring to clothing.