Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts under "Policy & Law"

  • Donuts wants to patent Domain Protected Marks List

    1. BY - Sep 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 4 Comments

    Registry files patent application for brand protection tool.

    DonutsDonuts wants to patent the Domain Protected Marks List (DPML), a service that helps brand owners prevent their trademarks from being registered across multiple top level domains.

    The company filed U.S. patent application 13/804919 (pdf) in March 2013 for “Domain Protected Marks List Based Techniques For Managing Domain Name Registrations”. The application was published today.

    DPML allows brand owners can pay a fee to block their domains from registration across all of the domains the registry manages.

    The retail cost of Donuts’ DPML is about $3,000 for five years. If Donuts ends up managing 200 domains, that would be $3 per domain blocked per year.

    Both Donuts and its partner Rightside offer DPML services. Interestingly, Rightside, not Donuts, has filed trademark applications for “Domain Protected Marks List”.

  • WWE accepts the challenge, fights for

    1. BY - Sep 17, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 9 Comments

    Domain name owner makes preemptive defense against UDRP.

    WWE.orgA UDRP for was just filed with National Arbitration Forum. You’ll see a curious message when you visit the domain name:

    Disclaimer: (Western Women Entrepreneurs) is not associated with (World Wrestling Entertainment) nor we have any intention to represent, sell or promote ANY wrestling goods. is a solo organization represents Western Women Entrepreneurs. we hold no trademark infringement towards WWE network nor using the domain in a bad faith.

    if you are and you wish to file a complaint through UDRP to claim our domain, you may go ahead without notifying us. however if you still wish to obtain our domain, you may contact us with a reasonable offer in order to get a reply.

    Apparently WWE (the wrestling group) accepted the challenge.

    Click here to continue reading

  • files cybersquatting suit against leased domain name

    1. BY - Sep 17, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    Company wants control of, which Vertical Axis might have leased to another party.

    CoolMath-Games.comIf you’ve ever stumbled upon a site in the network of websites, you probably thought you had taken a trip back to the 1990s. With black backgrounds and neon graphics, all that’s missing are spinning logos.

    But the network is big. Really big. alone had 677 million visits between June 2013 and June 2014.

    Now, LLC is suing to get control of Vertical Axis’ domain name, citing the Anticybersquatting Protection Act.

    The facts aren’t as simple as they originally seem, and the case should serve as a warning to those that lease domain names. …click here to continue reading

  • Should this UDRP complainant have withdrawn its case?

    1. BY - Sep 17, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    The response made it clear it would not win its case.

    The group that owns the the French wine estate Chateau Ausone filed a UDRP against the owner of

    On the face of it, I can understand why they filed the complaint. At the time they filed, visitors to saw a parked page that included links to wine. If they looked at the whois for, it didn’t indicate any connection to an “Ausone” brand”, other than the registrant being located in AUStralia.

    But once the respondent replied to the case, it became clear that Chateau Ausone would not win. …click here to continue reading

  • Owner of guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

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

    Company abused policy to try to deprive rightful owner of domain name.

    Country GirlLML Investments, owner of Country Girl branded clothing sold at, has been admonished by a panel for abusing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

    The company filed a cybersquatting complaint against PA Gordon, owner of The case was filed despite Gordon having owned the domain name since well before LML Investments claims any trademark rights in the “Country Girl” mark.

    A three person National Arbitration Forum panel determined that LML Investments did not make even a prima facie case in support of its arguments that Gordon lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. It was also unable to prove he registered the domain in bad faith, given that he registered it before the trademark rights.

    The panel wrote:

    The Panel finds that Complainant and its counsel have acted inappropriately and in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute and continuing with it following the delivery of the Response by Respondent. Complainant is attempting to deprive Respondent, the rightful, registered holder of the disputed domain name, of its rights to use the disputed domain name. Complainant and its counsel should have known that they would be unable to prove at least two of the elements needed to prevail. Even a cursory review of the URDP and UDRP decisions would have alerted Complainant and its counsel to the fact that its case was devoid of merit.

    LML Investments was represented by Continental Enterprises, an intellectual property firm that claims on its website to “use non-traditional strategies to combat infringers domestically and around the globe to provide effective solutions for seemingly intractable IP problems.”

    Gordon isn’t the only person the company has gone after in trying to enforce its “Country Girl” trademark.

    Ari Goldberger of represented the domain name owner.