Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Hexonet

Canadian company GVE Global Vision Inc tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Package proofreading firm guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

A Canadian company has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name GlobalVision.com.

GVE Global Vision Inc (which goes by the name GlobalVision) helps companies like P&G and Coca-Cola with proofreading and inspecting their packaging.

It filed a complaint under UDRP with National Arbitration Forum, arguing that the UK company SDB Organisation Limited was cybersquatting with the domain name.

SDB registered the domain name in 1995, about 23 years ago. This is before GVE Global Vision had any rights in the Global Vision name. The complainant registered GlobalVisionInc.com in 1997.

GVE Global Vision tried to buy the domain from its owner in 2016. When that failed, it filed a trademark in Canada for Global Vision. Then it filed the cybersquatting complaint after getting the Canadian trademark.

Panelist Darryl C. Wilson wrote:

Respondent asserts Complainant and Respondent’s companies co-existed for 21 years without issue until 2016, when Complainant made an attempt to purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent, which Respondent refused on the grounds Respondent is an active company. Respondent asserts Complainant subsequently registered a trademark and engaged a legal team to intimidate Respondent by filing the Complaint to illegitimately gain control over the domain. The Panel here finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the globalvision.com domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel thus concludes that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

GVE Global Vision was represented by Legal Logik Inc.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Man gets 20 years in prison for trying to steal a domain name

by — Policy & Law 9 Comments

Man tried physically force domain owner to transfer the domain name.

A Cedar Rapids, Iowa man will head to prison for 20 years for trying to steal a domain name, the Associated Press reports.

By steal a domain name, I mean physically.

Sherman Hopkins Jr. broke into a man’s home on June 21, 2017 with a handgun and demanded that the resident transfer the domain name DoItForState.com to another account, the AP reports. He shot the man with the gun and used a stun gun, but then the man got control of the gun and shot Hopkins back.

Domain name theft happens all of the time, but rarely does it involve a physical altercation. Usually, it’s a matter of stealing someone’s domain name registrar credentials or hacking into their email.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Comparing Whois after GDPR

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

See a limited Whois record through Port 43 as well as GoDaddy’s full Whois records.

Earlier today ICANN continued its battle in German courts over what data domain name registrars need to collect for WHOIS now that the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation is in effect.

Because of GDPR, ICANN has changed the data that domain name registrars must display in Whois records.

In this video, you’ll see what information domain name registrars need to provide for Port 43 lookups. It also shows what GoDaddy is providing if you do a web-based lookup on GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy continues to provide full Whois records for web-based lookups. Most other registrars limit the data.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

ICANN appeals German court ruling as it seeks definitive ruling on GDPR and Whois data collection

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

ICANN wants to know if collecting certain Whois data is a violation of GDPR.

A court battle in Germany over the impact of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) continues.

ICANN filed a legal action against EPAG, a registrar owned by Tucows, on May 25–the same day GDPR went into effect. It asked for an injunction after EPAG informed ICANN that it would no longer collect the administrative and technical contacts for Whois.

EPAG’s argument is that these two contact types are not necessary because it’s still collecting the registrant information. In most cases, the admin and technical contacts match the registrant data, and in the other cases EPAG would be holding data on parties it doesn’t have a contractual relationship with.

The German court ruled against the injunction.

However, ICANN notes that the court did not say whether or not collecting the data would be a violation of GDPR. That’s the information ICANN wants, so the group has appealed the ruling.

An English language translation of the appeal has been posted to ICANN’s website.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

In-Store music company tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Umix, LLC filed cybersquatting complaint that was an abuse of the UDRP.

A store that provides in-store music to businesses has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Umix.com.

Florida company UMix, LLC filed a complaint against Memeplex LTD of the United Kingdom. Memeplex offers a music-mixing app called Umix.

Umix, LLC was highly selective in its short complaint filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization. For example, it included a screenshot from the Wayback Machine that showed non-use of the domain, while ignoring many other captures that showed use of the domain. It also mentioned that it filed a complaint with Apple in an effort to get Umix removed from its App Store, but didn’t mention that the complaint was denied.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist John Swinson wrote:

The Complaint in this case is thoroughly deficient, and consists of less than half of one page in submissions in support of the Complainant’s case. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant made no real attempt to discharge its onus of proving the three elements of the Policy.

Further, the Complainant intentionally omitted key information in relation to the Complainant’s Apple complaint against the Respondent. The Complainant did not disclose the fact that the Respondent had responded to that complaint, and Apple had closed the complaint following the Respondent’s response. The Panel considers the Complainant filed the Complaint in an attempt to acquire the Disputed Domain Name in the wake of its unsuccessful attempt to prevent the Respondent from offering its UMIX Software via the Apple App Store. The Complainant also selectively chose to provide a historical screenshot of the website at the Disputed Domain Name which showed a parking page, and did not disclose the fact that there had been active websites associated with the Disputed Domain Name at other times since it was acquired by the Respondent in 2011. In fact, the Complainant stated that the Respondent had “squatted” on the Disputed Domain Name “for years”. This is clearly untrue, and the Complainant must have known this.

Further, despite having only recently acquired a registration for the Trade Mark, the Complainant provided no evidence of common law or unregistered trade mark rights, or of its reputation at any given time. The Complainant must have known that this would be necessary to show bad faith registration, and it is unclear whether the Complainant was aware of the 2011 date that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name.

It appears that Umix, LLC represented itself. Panelists sometimes cut a misguided, self-represented complainant some slack. But this case was too egregious.

After dealing with both an attempt to remove its app from the app store and an attempt to wrongfully take its domain name, I wouldn’t be surprised if Memeplex takes proactive action to put a stop to this.

Share5
Tweet8
Share
Email
13 Shares