A Generally Atrocious Communiqué.

I’ve learned a lot over the years while writing about the domain industry. In the past three years I’ve learned that if there’s a laborious article I need to research and write that has to do with new TLDs, I can just wait a little while and Kevin Murphy will do it instead.

That’s what he’s done with “This is how stupid the GAC’s new gTLDs advice is“.

The GAC’s “advice” about new top level domains coming out of Beijing is mind boggling. Here’s how Murphy sums it up:

For the last few weeks I’ve been attempting to write a sensible analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee’s advice on new gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm.

I failed, so you’ll have to read this instead.

Indeed, “stupid” is the first word that came to mind when I saw the GAC’s Beijing Communiqué. Incompetent was the second word that came to mind.

Unless, of course, the entire goal of GAC is to kill off or slow down the new TLD train. Then its Communiqué was frickin’ brilliant.

I see only one way for ICANN to handle the situation: after public comment, politely reject the “advice”.

Company that filed .secure trademark application appeals USPTO ruling.

The Wisconsin company that wants to trademark .secure hasn’t given up yet.

I first wrote about Asif LLC in 2010 when it filed a trademark application for .secure. It also filed an application to trademark .bank.

The application was originally filed on an intent-to-use basis. Later, Asif said it was using the term in commerce for “domain registration services”. How was it doing that in 2011, before new TLD applications were even being accepted? It based its claim on offering domain registrations as a Go Daddy reseller.

It actually managed to briefly register the .secure and .bank trademarks, albeit on the supplemental register.

But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a longstanding policy of not granting trademarks that are for top level domains. After noticing its mistake, the USPTO invalidated the registrations.

The application period for new TLDs has come and passed. Two* companies – Amazon.com and Artemis Internet Inc. – applied for .secure. Asif, which later changed its name to Domain Security Company LLC, did not.

Yet on May 3, Asif filed an appeal over the USPTO’s decision that .secure fails to function as a service mark. It is arguing that the USPTO must be able to grant trademark protection to top level domains.

Asif’s founder Mary Iqbal previously argued that the inability to trademark a top level domain gave an advantage to deep-pocket companies:

Furthermore, as a result of the lack of trademark protection for Top Level Domains, businesses competing for strings like .SAS may be forced to contend against each other financially, to bid against each other, for the right to have protection for the term .SAS for Registry Services. This means that applicants with access to greater funding resources have an advantage over those with less access to funding.

So Asif’s proof of use in commerce is that it allows registrations of .com, .net, etc. domains at a Go Daddy reseller. Yet it wants trademark protection for .secure as a top level domain…and it didn’t apply for the domain.

Confused? So am I.

* Note: the original version of this article mentioned that three companies, Symantec, Defender Security Company, and Donuts, applied for .secure. They applied for .security, not .secure.

Fundraising event in Las Vegas this month will benefit Water School.

Water School, a non-profit that helps bring clean water to those in developing countries, will host its second WaterNight during TRAFFIC in Las Vegas this month.

The group hosted the first WaterNight during WebFest in Santa Monica in February. It was more crowded than the conference itself and it helped raise $40,000 for Water School. Water School executive director Richard Lau had his head shaved at the end of the night thanks to hitting fundraising goals.

This month’s event will be Wednesday, May 29th at PBR Rock Bar in Las Vegas and will feature DJ Crykit. Doors open at 9:00 PM. It is again supported by NameCheap.com.

Upfront admission is just $50, although you’re encouraged to give more. You can RSVP through Eventbrite.

Makers of The Snugg are a bit slow, but I guess they finally got some good advice.

Last week I wrote about how Charon International Trading Limited, maker of The Snugg iPad cases, was about to lose its second UDRP domain dispute.

Technically, I was wrong. Perhaps realizing the error of its ways, Charon has now withdrawn the UDRP it filed for Snug.com. The Snug.com case would have been its second UDRP loss in two tries.

Charon lost its first UDRP when it tried to hijack Snugg.com earlier this year. Snugg.com was registered in 1999, over a decade before Charon registered its trademark.

Undeterred, the company filed a UDRP against domain name investor Roy Messer over Snug.com. Guess when Snug.com was registered? Yeah, 1999.

The upside to Charon withdrawing its UDRP is that Messer no longer has to spend money defending a frivolous case. The downside is that we don’t get to see what harebrained logic Charon tried to use in its case.

He might hold onto it if he gets a divorce.

Occasionally a UDRP is filed that’s part of a family feud.

Earlier this year I wrote about a how a guy filed a UDRP against his brother.

Now here’s another one: a man filed a UDRP against his ex-son-in-law.

According to the complainant, his family gave him his last name as a .com back in 2002. But apparently his son-in-law had actually done the registration and did it in his own name.

Later, the complainant’s daughter got a divorce, but her ex-husband held onto the name.

The panel refused to decide the case on the grounds that there were legal settlements between the respondent and his ex-wife, as well as potentially ongoing legal disputes.

I guess this is a variation on not letting your web hosting company register your domain in its own name…