Domain Name Wire » Policy & Law

ICANN reaffirms second round of new gTLDs

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:53:54 +0000

Board instructs CEO to outline plan and steps for opening a second round.

ICANN’s board of directors has passed a resolution reaffirming that it plans to open another round of new top level domain applications as “expeditiously as possible”.

The resolution instructs the CEO to create a work plan that outlines the steps necessary to initiate a second round of applications. This includes addressing Governmental Advisory Committee concerns over trademark protection and root zone scaling.

The current version of the new top level domain applicant guidebook states that the goal is to open a second round within one year of the current application period ending. The current application window closes April 12, 2012.

However, it is improbable that this can occur given commitments ICANN has made to review how the first round goes before proceeding to a second round. Industry observers have suggested that 2015 is a likely date based on the existing plan.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Judge issues first verdict in Monte Cahn v. Oversee.net

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:00:35 +0000

Judge sides with Oversee.net on narrow issue in lawsuit.

The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson has issued a verdict in the first trial between Monte Cahn and his former employer, Oversee.net.

The decision was extremely narrow, covering just one aspect of Cahn’s claims against the company.

Cahn had a bonus plan that was essentially an earnout from when Oversee.net bought Moniker from Seevast. It provided up to $13 million over three years.

One of the bonus measures was an overall Oversee EBITDA number that was to be set each year by the board. When business conditions deteriorated, the board never ended up setting the goal specific to the incentive plan.

However, it did set a company budget that had an EBITDA goal. This goal was used for other management at the company. Cahn argued that this is the number he should have been held to under his incentive plan.

The judge issued his findings solely about one question:

“whether Oversee promised Cahn that his Performance Goal under the MIP [incentive plan] would be identical to a target (the “Company Budget”) used as part of the process for determining bonuses for Oversee legacy management employees.”

The court decided that Oversee did not make this promise.

Oversee.net provided evidence from its negotiations with Cahn before he joined the company that showed the company explicitly said it would not hold Cahn’s bonus measures to be consistent with the rest of management. Its goal, as stated in the incentive plan, was to reward “significant contributions toward the continued or improved profitability and growth of the Company ”

~~Moniker~~Oversee.net’s 2008 EBITDA “budget” goal was $51.1 million. That goal was reduced by more than 50% to $23.9 million for 2009. Since the earnout was designed to reward growth, the judge said it wouldn’t make sense for this budget number to apply to Cahn’s bonus plan.

Oversee.net later offered Cahn an alternative bonus plan when it realized the existing one wouldn’t give him much of an incentive because he was unlikely to hit the lofty numbers. Afterall, the company slashed its own projections by half. Cahn was able to receive a bonus under the old plan or the new plan.

In 2009, Cahn received a bonus under the new plan (with reduced targets) that was about 10% of what he would have gotten under the old plan.

The judge questioned how Cahn would have accepted this reduced bonus if he thought he was due $1 million or more under the original bonus plan.

As I stressed at the beginning of this post, this is just one narrow issue in the case Cahn brought against Oversee. There will be much more to come.

You can read the judge’s decision here.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Hey NAF, this is a classic example of reverse domain hijacking

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:14:51 +0000

Respondent wins but should have gotten more than that.

National Arbitration Forum panelist Beatrice Onica Jarka got the “answer” correct in a recent UDRP case. But she really should have considered reverse domain name hijacking.

The case was brought by deals site Shopzooey, Inc.

Shopzooey, Inc was founded in 2011. Upon finding the domain name Shopzooey.com already registered, the company registered MyShopZooey.com in July 2011. ShopZooey.com was registered in September 2010.

Fast forward to 2012 and ShopZooey is frustrated that it can’t get in touch with the owner of the better domain name to try to buy it. So it files a UDRP.

Here are some of the complainant’s arguments:

“Respondent has failed to address continued overtures by Complainant in a good faith attempt to open up a negotiations dialogue for the possible purchase of the domain.”

“The domain name is being used in bad faith, as upon purchasing the disputed domain name, Respondent failed to put the domain to proper use. To date, Respondent has yet to make proper use of the domain and this misuse has continued for one year and four months.”

“…Respondent’s continued renewal and failure to properly utilize the domain qualifies as a deliberate attempt by Respondent to profit from diverting users to the Respondent’s myshopzooey.com website by causing mistake or deception as to the source of origin of the services and intentionally disrupting Complainant’s business.”

“Respondent utilized a third-party registration company (Domains by Proxy, Inc.) to shield the true identity of the Respondent. As such, Complainant submitted numerous requests to the third-party registration company to contact the Respondent to attempt to engage in a dialogue regarding the disputed domain name.”

My God, I think I might throw up.

If there ever is UDRP reform, arbitration forums should be required to throw out cases where the subject domain was registered before any claimed trademark rights.

In the mean time, panelists should call reverse domain name hijacking when they see it. Even if the respondent doesn’t have a lawyer and doesn’t know to ask for it.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

No related posts.

.Ping trademark in jeopardy, but Ping sailing through

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:29:29 +0000

PING golf manufacturer still has a TLD trademark going through the system.

Last month I wrote about how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had caught on to an trademark application for .Ping.

It was filed by Karsten Manufacturing, which owns the PING line of golf products.

Although the USPTO has a policy of not allowing trademarks for top level domain names, .Ping had proceeded to publication until it was caught by an examiner.

But I just noticed another application (85,441,399) Karsten filed that has proceeded to publication: “Ping”. There’s no dot at the beginning, but the “Goods and Services” description makes it clear what it’s for:

Domain name registration services; Registration of domain names for identification of users on a global computer network

That’s the same description the company used for .Ping. If Karsten were to get this trademark then it could try to use it against anyone else that decides to apply for .ping as a top level domain.

There’s another interesting application from Karsten as well. Take a look at application 85,453,143 for “PING” for “Chat room services for social networking; Providing on-line chat rooms for social networking”. The company says it’s been using this term in commerce since 2010, and provides a screenshot of something from iTunes to back up this claim. I really don’t understand what this screenshot represents, but it seems peculiar. Especially since “ping” is a perfectly reasonable name for a chat service.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

James Brown estate doesn’t “feel good” after domain dispute

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:35:19 +0000

Godfather of Soul’s domain name can stay with management company.

The estate of James Brown has lost a domain arbitration case for the domain name JamesBrown.com.

The domain is owned by LAC Management, Inc., which manages “RJ & The James Brown Band”. LAC argued that James Brown gave at least his tacit consent for it to register the domain name. In its pleadings, the estate even admitted that Brown may have consented to the domain registration while he was alive.

The estate made a number of legal arguments that aren’t typically considered by a UDRP panel and the panel decided to ignore them.

That makes sense. Even if the estate does have a legal argument to get this domain name, it’s certainly too complex to be handled by the UDRP mechanism.

LAC Management was represented by Ari Goldberger of ESQwire.com.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

National Car Rental sues over National.com typo – a domain it doesn’t even own

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:44:22 +0000

Car rental company demands typo of National.com, a domain it doesn’t even own.

Vanguard Trademark Holdings, which owns the National car rental brand, has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit (pdf) against the domain name Natiional.com.

The company filed a UDRP against the domain name already. It lost that case in June. On the same day it won a similar case for another typo, Nationnal.com.

Part of the reason it lost the Natiional.com case is because the panel ruled it’s OK to own a typo of a generic word.

But what I find most interesting is that the company doesn’t even own National.com. It’s owned by National Semiconductor. So Vanguard is asking a court to hand over a typo of a domain it doesn’t even own!

I also get a kick out of the convoluted way Vanguard found links to car rentals on Natiional.com, basically saying that if you go a few pages into the directory-like parked page you can find links to car rental companies, including National.

Vanguard says that Natiional.com, although protected with a whois privacy service, actually belongs to Kevin Ham’s Vertical Axis.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Shuzi seller loses battle for Shuzi.com

Andrew Allemann — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:14:38 +0000

A Shuzi bracelet is supposed to work miracles, but it doesn’t have powers to “steal” domain names.

ShuziQi, which sells “Shuzi” bracelets, has lost a domain dispute over the domain Shuzi.com.

The details of the case aren’t as entertaining as what Shuzi is, so I’ll be brief on the case. Basically, the owner of the domain registered it four years before ShuziQi existed, and Shuzi’s English transliteration can mean “digital”. The domain owner registered several other domains that had generic transliterations. The panel ruled in favor of the respondent.

OK, now on to Shuzi.

ShuziQi offers bracelets you wear that apparently have awesome powers. Here’s how they describe them:

Programmed using our own proprietary process to resonate with your cells’ natural frequency to improve your bio-system balance. Reinforces your cells’ natural frequency energy level which reduces erratic cell behavior, allowing your body to work more efficiently.

Hmm. I was a little skeptical until I read the reviews on the web site. The first doctor’s review:

Earlier today I received a Shuzi bracelet to try out. I support the philosophy behind the Shuzi and would recommend it to anyone who is looking to improve their overall quality of life.

Sweet. If a doctor hasn’t tried it yet but just got one in the mail, I’m all for it. I think I should get one for my dog, too, after reading this testimonial:

I wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t for my daughters little dog Tammy. The kids jumped on the bed and didn’t see little Tammy. She spent a week in the vets with a very severe back injury. They gave her anti inflammatory shots and sent her home with pills. A week at home and she still had difficulty walking. My daughter put the PHD tag on the Tammy on Monday night and on Tuesday the she was scampering down the driveway. Dogs can’t lie, I’m sold. I’ve ordered a ring and can’t wait to put it on.

If you start using a ShuziQi bracelet and experience dizziness for the first few days, don’t be alarmed. Apparently this is caused by “a “detox” in which your body is flushing out toxins in your blood stream.”

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

No related posts.