Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"

  • Nirvana gets domain names from Australian man who demanded $1.5 million

    1. BY - Nov 20, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    Panels say it Smells Like B.S.

    NirvanaNirvana LLC — the company that owns the intellectual property from the late grunge band Nirvana — has won control of five domain names registered by an Australian man.

    The company filed UDRP and aUDRP disputes against Darren Wilcox (Willcox) for the domain names,,, and

    Wilcox argued that he registered the domain names because of the concept of nirvana. However, his actions in negotiating a settlement with Nirvana certainly made it look like bad faith.

    After saying he had out-of-pocket costs of about $2,500, Wilcox requested $1.5 million to transfer the domain names.

    He later tried to justify the $1.5 million price tag (and threat of using the domains if no settlement was reached) by explaining that the $2,500 did not include “man hours, concept consolidation, trademark applications, future projects, and the amount of knowledge that the Respondent has about drums.”

    That’s an awful lot of knowledge.

    Wilcox also noted that Nirvana “is a considerable financial juggernaut”, a statement that will always look bad to UDRP panels.

  • Guy tries to trademark one of Rick Schwartz’s domain names

    1. BY - Nov 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 17 Comments

    This one will be interesting.

    This morning I was perusing recently filed trademark applications when I came across an application for

    When I checked the whois on the domain name, I saw that the domain was registered to domain name investor Rick Schwartz. But the company that filed the trademark was Trademark King in Indiana. (with two k’s) is registered under whois privacy, so I thought perhaps the trademark applicant owns this domain and the application was merely a typo. I picked up the phone and called the applicant to verify this was the case.

    To my amazement, it’s not. The president of the applicant said he didn’t like how the domain name looked with two k’s, so he just used one. (He also filed a trademark application for “Trademark King”.)

    When I explained that someone else owned the domain name, he said he didn’t know that but that it doesn’t matter. He explained that he buys and sells trademarks, and if he trademarks it first, then it doesn’t matter who owns the domain name.

    In fact, he said he’d have his lawyer demand that the domain name “be taken down”.

    Please pass the popcorn.

  • UDRP rule changes coming next year to thwart “Cyberflight”

    1. BY - Nov 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 6 Comments

    Registrars will be required to lock domain names prior to registrant finding out about UDRP case.

    ICANN has announced a July 31, 2015 implementation date for amended rules under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

    The new rules were designed to thwart a practice of “cyberflight”, in which the owner of a domain name subject to a UDRP transfers the domain to another registrar to evade the policy.

    Under the amended rules, registrars will have to place a defined lock on a domain name within two business days of receiving notice of a UDRP action — and before notifying the domain owner of the UDRP. Complainants no longer have to send a copy of their complaint to respondents as well, as this would tip them off and give them a chance to transfer their domain name.

    If a registrar wants to remove whois privacy/proxy services, they need to do so before during the two day period.

    The ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings in September 2013.

  • saved in UDRP, but no RDNH and unbelievable dissent

    1. BY - Nov 14, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 18 Comments

    Domain bought for $18,805 earlier this year saved in UDRP, but it was closer than it should have been.

    In September, I wrote about the domain name being hit with a UDRP after the buyer paid $18,805 to buy it in an expired domain name auction.

    A three person WIPO panel has denied the UDRP, but one panelist dissented and the panel did not find reverse domain name hijacking. I find the dissent appalling. Click to continue reading…

  • owners will lose big if Verisign doesn’t get its way

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

    They could be forced to buy transliterations within a limited time period.

    Verisign has been negotiating its contracts for transliterations of .com for a long time, and last week we got an idea about what the hold up is.

    ICM Registry, the domain registry for .xxx and the forthcoming .adult, .porn and .sex top level domains, announced that it finally inked contracts with ICANN for new TLDs. The catch is that ICM had to change how it handled its Domain Matching program.

    ICM wanted to reserve second level domain names that match existing .xxx domain names, and then offer the reserved names to the .xxx owner if (and whenever) they decide they want the new domains. The idea is similar to what .UK is doing for owners of third level .uk domains. In that case, third level owners have five years to claim their second level domains.

    But ICANN wouldn’t let them do it this way, according to ICM. There are two issues at play, as I understand it. Click here to continue reading…