XYZ/Verisign dispute goes on as “scavengers” snap up expired domains.
Verisign has filed a reply (pdf) to XYZ’s brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals over the .com giant’s false advertising charges.
As you may recall, Verisign says XYZ falsely inflated its success and disparaged .com.
Verisign’s reply brief mainly rehashes old arguments that the two adversaries obviously disagree about.
For example, Verisign claims 70% of .com availability searches succeed. XYZ claims 99% fail.
The difference is that XYZ is including drop catching services hammering Verisign’s servers to try to get domains when they drop.
Verisign argues these shouldn’t count. In an amusing statement, its lawyers call people buying dropping domain names “professional domain name scavengers.”
So the case goes on.
I’m not a lawyer, and Verisign might have some arguments that the lower court erred. But some things still make me scratch my head. I’m still confused as to how Verisign is arguing that XYZ’s disparagement of .com hurt sales of .net.