Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

5 features to power up your Gmail

by — Services 0 Comments

These features make email management easier.

Gmail is the hub for managing my business and the browser tab I spend the most time in. But Gmail is only as powerful as you make it. Here are 5 features I use that make Gmail more effective.

Snooze

A cluttered inbox is an unusable inbox. Snooze makes it easy to prioritize emails. If I don’t have the information required to respond to an email or know that I won’t be able to address it until a certain date, I snooze the email until then. This takes it out of the inbox until the snooze date/time.

Gmail snooze feature illlustration

Scheduled Send

There are a handful of emails I need to send every week or once a month. It’s easier to batch these and send them at later dates. Gmail’s scheduling feature makes this possible.

A couple of ways I use this feature are:

  • Create invoices in a batch and then schedule them to email on the dates they are supposed to be sent.
  • I have to send a script to my wife once a week for part of her podcast. I usually forget until she’s already recording and asks me for it. With scheduling I can set the email up to send on Monday morning of the week it needs to be sent.

To use scheduling, click the up arrow next to Send in any email to see your options.

Gmail scheduled send feature screenshot

Canned Responses

While these are called Canned Responses, think of them as canned emails. They can be used as templates for emails you send frequently. Here’s a tutorial.

Canned responses from Gmail Labs

Smart Compose

Smart Compose is a controversial feature. I didn’t like it at first but adjusted to it within a few days. Basically, as you type is suggests the end of your sentence. If you like the suggestion you just hit the space bar to autocomplete it. Here’s an example:

Gmail smart compose example

Again, it takes a while to get used to this. But it definitely speeds up your email response time.

Two-Factor Authentication

Two-factor authentication will help keep your account safe. You can use an app-based authenticator, but a physical security key is faster and more secure. See how to set this up here.

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.

 

 

Analyzing startup domain names (take two)

by — Uncategorized 1 Comment

Most still use .com.

Picture of woman at a startup with words Startup Domain Names overlayed

Last year I reviewed the domain names that MassChallenge’s incoming Texas class of startups used for their businesses. MassChallenge just announced its new Texas class, so let’s take a fresh look.

84% of the companies that had a domain name when they were announced last year used .com. This year it’s 75%.

Here are the domains used by this year’s class:

.com 39
.co 5
.net 2
.io 1
.xyz 1
.org 1
.careers 1
.ai 1
.in 1

Some of the companies are using subpar domains. For example, Axion Technologies LLC uses axiontechnologiesllc.com because another company uses the version without LLC. This is a sign that the name you’ve chosen is going to cause issues down the road.

I gave a talk about domain names to last year’s MassChallenge class and found out that the domains many of them were using were temporary. Heck, the names they had chosen were just placeholders. These are very early stage companies. So many of the companies that make it to the next stage will change their domain names.

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.