Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"

  • 4chan loses domain name dispute with Oversee.net

    1. BY - Aug 15, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 8 Comments

    4chan wanted to get the domain name 4chan.com.

    4chanPopular bulletin board site 4chan has lost a case it filed to get the domain name 4chan.com.

    4chan, LLC, which operates the top 1,000 site 4chan.org, filed the complaint with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against Oversee.net back in March.

    One commenter on my original story about the UDRP case thought it was odd that 4chan was just now coming after the domain name. That person also pointed out that 4chan was a name similar to another board called 2chan, which is why the name was selected in the first place.

    The three person panel determined that 4chan did not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

    This was a lengthy determination, but essentially the panel said it was plausible that Oversee.net registered the domain name without the bulletin board, which was created a few months earlier, in mind. After all, there are other number-chan sites, like the aforementioned 2chan.

    Given the length of time it took 4chan to file the case, it was harder for the panel to determine why Oversee.net originally registered the domain name.

    Oversee.net has since sold its portfolio of domain names to Rook Media (technically the portfolio went to Sol Invictus Comiti, LP, according to the UDRP). This transaction took place shortly after the case was filed. My reading of the decision is that perhaps Oversee.net’s lawyers made things harder for Rook going forward by asking the question of whether this is a transfer of the domain to a new registrant by the rules of UDRP.

    This story has been updated to include additional details from the UDRP case decision.

  • ICANN publishes updated new TLD Auction schedule

    1. BY - Aug 12, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    Delays now require all-party consent, so contention set resolution should accelerate.

    ICANN has published an updated “auction of last resort” schedule for new top level domain names.

    It’s harder for individual applicants to postpone these auctions now that the framework for handling name collisions is finalized.

    Postponements are now only possible if all parties in the contention set agree to the postponement. In that case, auctions can be postponed up to two months from their original date.

    The next set of auctions will take place in September, unless they’re resolved by the parties ahead of time. On the schedule for September are .buy, .tech, .coach, .vip, .flowers, .ltd and .health.

    Sources tell me that some of the TLDs on this list have already been settled privately. We’ll see that a lot going forward: last minute settlements ahead of an ICANN auction.

    There are benefits to settling contention sets privately. Losers in ICANN auctions only get a small refund on their applications, whereas private settlements typically involve a payoff. Also, ICANN auction prices are public whereas private ones are not.

    ICANN has held only one auction of last resort so far: .信息 was auctioned for $600,000.

  • Oh, great: someone is SMS spamming Whois

    1. BY - Aug 09, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 9 Comments

    sms-spam-2

    I guess those emails the spammers send you after you register a domain name aren’t effective enough.

    Don’t click the link, even out of curiosity. Your mobile phone number is appended to the URL, so they’ll know you got the message.

  • ICANN 51 site shows funny tweet from parody Chehade account

    1. BY - Aug 07, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 3 Comments

    Unfiltered tweet feed on ICANN website pokes fun at .xyz giveways.

    Like many meetings/conferences, ICANN publishes a tweetstream on its page for each meeting. That includes the site for the upcoming ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles, which pulls in all tweets with the hashtag #icann51.

    The conference is still a couple months away, so you won’t find many relevant tweets about the event. It’s also an unfiltered feed.

    Which is what makes it funny. There are a bunch of parody accounts of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé, and one of them is featured front and center on the ICANN 51 meeting site right now:

    shoddy-fehade

    The rest of the tweets on the page are due to spam hashtags from DomainGang.

  • 2 very odd UDRP cases claim “technological confusion”

    1. BY - Aug 06, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Part of brand is in domain names, but you have to look closely for it.

    I was rather confused a couple months ago when I saw fashion designer Philipp Plein filed UDRPs against peopleincasinos.com and supportpeopleinneed.org.

    Both sites featured clothing that the sites claimed was authentic Philipp Plein clothing.

    But what did these domain names have to do with Philipp Plein?

    Well, take a look at the domain names again:

    PeoPLEINcasinos.com
    SupportPeoPLEINneed.org

    The person who created the sites apparently chose domain names that embedded the Plein name with the hope of getting better search engine results. (I’m somewhat skeptical that this would help.)

    Is this enough to pass the confusing similarity requirement in UDRP?

    The complainant made the case that the domains created “technological confusion”, but did not provide evidence to that effect.

    Even if it had, panelist David J.A. Cairns indicated he would have denied confusing similarity:

    Further, a consequence of the Complainant’s argument is that any trademark appearing in a domain name would satisfy the confusing similarity test on the basis that it would be recognized within the domain name by search engines. On this basis, to take the example from WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 1.2, the domain name would be confusingly similar to the trademark HEAT. This result changes the current understanding of confusing similarity, and suggests that even if confusion by technological effect were accepted, visual or aural characteristics cannot be disregarded entirely. In this case, the Complainant has also failed to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy on the grounds that that there is no visual or aural confusion at all in the present case between the PLEIN trademark and the disputed domain name. It is not sufficient that the trademark is only visible when the viewer is told it is definitely there.

    Cases like these weren’t made for UDRP.