Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Addicting.com owner shows up to defend domain name

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

Addicting.com owner challenges in rem action.

Screenshot of AddictingGames.com. The company is suing the owner of Addicting.com

Addicting Games screenshot

The owner of the domain name Addicting.com showed up to defend its domain name in a lawsuit.

Addicting Games, Inc., led by Bill Karamouzis (podcast), filed an in rem lawsuit against the domain name in January claiming cybersquatting.

Federal Investment Group, LLC (FIG), led by Krikor Bedrossian, has now filed with the court (pdf) to dismiss the case or move the jurisdiction.

FIG is  Nevada corporation.

According to the motion, Bill Karamouzis met with Krikor Bedrossian at a TRAFFIC conference in 2011, and the two discussed the domain name. Bedrossian questions why in rem is proper given that Karamouzi allegedly knew who owned the domain name.

The motion also states that the domain has had common ownership since 1999. This predates Addicting Games’ trademark, which would mean the domain was not registered in bad faith to target the mark.

An affidavit (pdf) from lawyer Paul Keating is included in the filing. The affidavit includes supporting documentation about the ownership of the domain.

 

 

The problem with not finding reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

Panelists should find RDNH even when a complainant is just very misguided.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has given a free pass to a Complainant who seemed to not understand the requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Sébastien Paches filed a UDRP to get the domain name Paches.com for a business he is launching. A domain investor registered the domain before he had his business idea.

Paches tried to buy the domain but didn’t like the owner’s price, so he filed a UDRP.

This is a classic case of reverse domain name hijacking. But panelist Nick Gardner let him off the hook.

Paches was represented by counsel. His case was so dead-on-arrival that Gardner gave him a pass:

On balance the Panel does not consider the Complainant’s conduct warrants a finding of RDNH. It considers this is a case which should never have been brought and where the Complainant had no prospects whatsoever of succeeding. As such it is potentially within (i) above. There is also some evidence suggesting this is a situation whereby the Complainant has failed to buy the Disputed Domain Name at a price he was prepared to pay, and then adopted an alternative strategy of an unmeritorious Complaint. It is also the case (as the Respondent points out) that the Complainant was less than frank when seeking to buy the Disputed Domain Name claiming he wanted it for personal use as it corresponded to his family name and not mentioning his proposed business or asserting any legal claim. However the Complainant is not represented and it seems to the Panel that on balance he has simply failed to properly understand the Policy rather than acted deliberately in bad faith. Accordingly the Panel has concluded the Complainant’s conduct does not fall within the above guidelines and does not deserve the censure of a finding of RDNH.

While panelists sometimes go easy on Complainants who aren’t represented by counsel, it’s worth pointing out that the domain owner was represented by counsel. He likely paid several thousand dollars to defend the domain name. And while a finding of RDNH in a UDRP doesn’t come with a financial penalty, the domain owner is owed this respect.

Russian car cam company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 5 Comments

Company wanted .com domain to match its .ru website.

Screenshot of the website CarCam.ru

The owner of CarCam.ru tried to get the domain CarCam.com but was instead found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

A Russian electronics seller known for its car cameras has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist.

Limited Liability Company AV 808, which uses the domain name CarCam.ru, filed a cybersquatting dispute against the domain name CarCam.com.

The owner of CarCam.com registered the domain in 1996, well before the Russian company existed. The Russian company tried to buy the domain and filed the cybersquatting dispute under UDRP after its purchase attempts were rebuffed. In other words, it was a classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking.

In finding that the case was brought in abuse of the cybersquatting policy, WIPO panelist Marilena Comanescu determined that:

the Complainant should have appreciated that establishing registration and use in bad faith in respect of a domain name which had first been registered seventeen years ago was likely to involve difficult considerations.

Amazon might give new TLDs a boost

by — Policy & Law 11 Comments

The company could drive awareness by using .Amazon.

Amazon.com logo

ICANN moved a big step closer to awarding the .Amazon top level domain name to Amazon.com Friday.

The non-profit domain overseer approved a resolution that moves the top level domain forward against the wishes of Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). Two ACTO member states–Brazil and Peru–originally objected to Amazon’s 2012 application for the domain name. This kicked off a seven-year battle.

The Governmental Advisory Committee formally objected to .Amazon by unanimous consent even though the U.S. representative could have quashed the attempt.

Amazon.com challenged this decision with an Independent Review Process. It won the review in 2017 but it wasn’t over.

Since then it has tried to appease ACTO members to get the organization to drop its challenge. It offered them a $5 million gift card and lots of safeguards.

But ACTO has been stubborn. It often seemed as though it was fighting on principle rather than real concerns. This made it harder for Amazon to overcome objections that were difficult to define.

Amazon made a number of commitments to the member states as part of Public Interest Commitment. That will be open for public comment. Once the public comment period ends, .Amazon could see the light of day.

If Amazon.com uses .Amazon in a robust way it will give a shot in the arm to new top level domain name awareness. There’s a big ‘if’ there, though.

Amazon was one of the biggest applicants for new top level domains but hasn’t done much with the domains it acquired. But it has used .AWS in some advertising, and the thinking here is that it could do the same with .Amazon but at a bigger scale. It could go much bigger by putting products or categories on their own .Amazon pages. Millions of customers would then see a new top level domain.

Or maybe its seven-year battle was just a matter of securing an important piece of intellectual property.

Don’t give your web developer access to your domain registrar account

by — Policy & Law 49 Comments

Another business says it lost its domain to a web developer.

Image of megaphone with words "Public Service Announcement" below it

I know I’ve written about this many times, but if these stories prevent just one legal issue then it’s worth it.

Please, don’t give your web developer full access to your domain name registrar account.

Yesterday, a web site owner in Nevada filed a lawsuit (pdf) against a contract developer alleging that the developer has taken over his domain name and business.

EB Publishing, Inc. publishes ApplianceRepair.net. It hired Adrian Bursill to do work on its website. Now it alleges that he abused his access to the registrar account and switched the ownership of the website to his name.

Historical Whois records for the domain show that it changed from EB Publishing to Bursill in 2016. The domain has not switched registrars.

EB Publishing has operated the website since 1998 but says it has now lost control of it.

Your web developer should not need access to your domain registrar account. If they want access to change nameservers (which I still recommend you do yourself), make sure the access limits what they can do in the account. They should not be able to change domain contacts or transfer the domain.

Greenberg & Lieberman is representing EB Publishing.