Displaying posts tagged under "Frank Schilling"
GoDaddy, Sedo, Frank Schilling’s new TLDs, and a .xxx domain name make the news.
Tired of turkey leftovers yet? Here are some domain name leftovers from last month…the top five stories on Domain Name Wire, ranked by order of views.
1. GoDaddy begins accepting pre-registrations for new TLDs for up to $1,200 each – the world’s largest domain name registrar starts accepting paid pre-registrations for .uno, .menu, luxury, and .build domain names. It isn’t cheap, either.
2. Frank Schilling’s first new top level domain name is live – .tattoo and .sexy are in the root.
3. GoDaddy to end its Sedo domain sales partnership – listings will no longer be syndicated come the end of Q1 2014.
4. David Letterman jokes about Healthcare domain name – David Letterman promotes a parked .xxx page to make fun of Healthcare.gov debacle.
5. Sedo reports continuing decline in domain parking – Revenue keeps dropping thanks to low price competition, Google adjustments, and browser changes.
You can now visit a .tattoo domain name.
Frank Schilling’s .tattoo is alive with nic.tattoo.
Yes, that’s a domain name. And it’s now on the internet.
It’s the first second level domain of Schilling’s TLD bids that you can actually visit from your browser.
Included on the site, which is a pitch “artists, studios, and individuals” about the future availability of .tattoo domain names, is a video of Frank Schilling philosophizing about tattoos. If he does a video for his .sexy domain name, I hope he takes a slightly different tact. I can imagine a great parody video.
[Update: nic.sexy is now up too, and thankfully there's no Schilling video about sexiness on the site.]
The video includes examples of domain names you might register, ranging from warrior.tattoo to maria.tattoo to alex.tattoo. (None of the suggested domains are on the name collision block list. I checked.)
Australian charter jet company didn’t give the full story to WIPO panel.
Frank Schilling’s Name Administration has successfully defended another UDRP filed against one of its domain names. The three person UDRP panel also found the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
JetGo Australia, an airplane charter company, filed the complaint over the domain name JetGo.com.
This is a classic case of a company adopting a company name in which the .com was already registered, but then claiming it was registered in bad faith. The panel determined that it was impossible the domain was registered in bad faith to target JetGo, which at the time had yet to select “JetGo” as its brand.
The reverse domain name hijacking charge came about because JetGo tried to mislead the panel with evidence showing that Name Administration offered to sell the domain name. JetGo omitted the full communication between the parties, which showed that it was JetGo that wanted to buy the domain name and Name Administration was merely responding to its offer:
The Panel considers that the Complaint filed in this case was brought in bad faith, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding, on the basis that it is seriously misleading. In particular, the Complaint fails to set out fully facts that were fundamental to the Complainant’s case and of which the Complainant had knowledge – namely, the Complainant’s unsolicited initiation and renewal of communications with the Respondent regarding possible purchase of the disputed domain name. By failing to state these facts, the Complaint makes an implied assertion that is false – namely, that the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a substantial sum was unsolicited by the Complainant. This false assertion might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refuted this implied assertion. To knowingly make a false implied assertion on a material issue is evidence that the Complaint was brought in bad faith. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case on a material issue is without basis when the Complainant must have known this fact.
JetGo was represented by Sparke Helmore Lawyers. Name Administration was represented by John Berryhill.
You can handle your fresh leads and they’ll take your stale ones.
A common complaint about domain name marketplaces is that your parked domain names are generated all of their leads. Why should you pay the marketplace when someone first expresses interest by clicking a link on your parked domain name?
Frank Schilling’s DomainNameSales.com announced a new brokerage service today that is the best of both worlds for those that want first crack at selling their own domains without commission.
Basically, DomainNameSales.com will offer follow up on any of your stale leads (i.e. greater than 30 days).
This is something DNS is good at. I have a number of domain names parked with them and use their brokerage service. They still occasionally reach out to leads that went stale months ago. Although none of these old leads have converted into a sale for me, customers don’t really take a risk by having DNS follow up on them.
On a less exciting note, the company upped its brokerage fee from 10% to 12.5%. That’s still much lower than what competitors charge.
Panel determines that Aptus Tech engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
Last month I asked why people didn’t do a bit of research before filing a UDRP against Frank Schilling.
The specific case that prompted my article was Klipz.com, which had just been filed.
The decision is in, and it’s clear that, not only did the complainant not research who owned the domain, but he didn’t research much about UDRP, either.
A three person National Arbitration Forum panel found complainant Aptus Tech LLC, represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
The details in this case are particularly egregious.
Basically, the founder of Aptus Tech tried to buy Klipz.com from Schilling’s Name Administration before he started the business. He failed to acquire it, but went ahead and filed a trademark application and (apparently) started marketing a product by the name Klipz. (I say “apparently” because I can’t find any details about the product online.)
Respondent also takes issue with Complainant’s assertion in its complaint that “on or around August 27, 2009,” Respondent, in response to an email from “firstname.lastname@example.org,” offered to sell the domain name to Complainant. Respondent notes that Complainant did not even exist as of August 27, 2009 and that Complainant makes no attempt to explain how Respondent’s willingness to entertain the offer to purchase in 2009 establishes a “primary purpose” in having acquired the domain name in 2004. Respondent contends that it was under no obligation to sell the domain name to email@example.com who claimed to be “starting a small business” in August 2009. “Indeed, such statement is an admission that no relevant trade or service mark existed at that time. It also demonstrates the Complainant’s full knowledge of Respondent’s senior registration and use of the domain name years before the Complainant began using such a mark in commerce, thus deliberately creating the situation on which the Complaint is premised.
In finding Aptus guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:
In this case, the evidence indicates that Complainant clearly knew that the disputed domain name was registered many years before it could establish rights in the KLIPZ mark and, thus, that it would not be able to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, which is one of elements one must establish in order to prevail under the Policy.
Schilling was represented by John Berryhill.