Comments for The Domain Blog http://the-domain-blog.com Blogging the UDRP and Domain Name Decisions Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:35:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on Viko can’t prove bad faith registration of VIKO.COM by Bad Faith In Mind « The Domain Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2011/02/04/viko-cant-prove-bad-faith-registration-of-viko-com/#comment-142 Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:35:06 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=417#comment-142 [...] Faith In Mind Last week I wrote a post about Viko Elektrik Ve Elektronik Endüstrisi Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. UniqueBrandNames [...]

]]> Comment on Much Ado About Nothing? by Panel Suggests Laches Relevant In Denying Kaspersky Complaint « The Domain Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/11/30/much-ado-about-nothing/#comment-138 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:37:50 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=354#comment-138 [...] I agree with the Panel that the UDRP is not appropriate for this dispute. Of course, the reference to laches is sure to get everyone fired up. Because the decision is not founded on the laches aspect, though, I still think this is much ado about nothing. [...]

]]> Comment on UDRP Panel: “.co” domain registration is typosquatting of its “.com” counterpart by Clash of the Domains: .co Versus .com « IPmetrics – Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/11/10/udrp-panel-co-domain-registration-is-typosquatting-of-its-com-counterpart/#comment-136 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:35:25 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=318#comment-136 [...] case last year, New Dream Network, LLC v. Yuanjin Wu (WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0013), also covered by The Domain Blog, also dealt with what is tantamount to a holding that a “.co” domain was typosquatting [...]

]]> Comment on Owner of pokerstrategy.com wins UDRP on pokerstrategy.co by Clash of the Domains: .co Versus .com « IPmetrics – Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2011/01/21/owner-of-pokerstrategy-com-wins-udrp-on-pokerstrategy-co/#comment-135 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:35:03 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=403#comment-135 [...] recently is the very descriptive <pokerstrategy.co> domain. According to the recent report by The Domain Blog, a UDRP complain was brought by Swerford Holdings Ltd. (“Swerford”) which had, [...]

]]> Comment on Sour relationships and hijackers: Two More Reasons to Ditch Octogen by Panel Lays Smack Down on Parties Fighting Over adyaclarity.com « The Domain Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/10/29/sour-relationships-and-hijackers-two-more-reasons-to-ditch-octogen/#comment-129 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:50:30 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=288#comment-129 [...] a fact pattern suited for the UDRP. [This falls into the "sour relationship" category I discussed here a while [...]

]]> Comment on Fireman’s Fund Gets Burned In Attempt To Recover firemansfundblog.com by Dan T. http://the-domain-blog.com/2011/01/05/firemans-fund-gets-burned-in-attempt-to-recover-firemansfundblog-com/#comment-103 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:20:33 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=387#comment-103 If it’s a noncommercial site, he should have used firemansfundblog.org.

However, neither does the company involved need that domain; if they wanted to have an official blog they could do it logically with a subdomain like blog.firemansfund.com.

]]> Comment on Visa loses bid to recover Premiercards.net by Visa loses bid to get domain name « IPmetrics – Blog http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/12/23/visa-loses-bid-to-recover-premiercards-net/#comment-102 Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:49:32 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=378#comment-102 [...] Harris, in The Domain Blog, keenly sees that the Panel’s emphasis on the “wording component” of Visa’s marks suggests [...]

]]> Comment on Xiha.com: After the UDRP by Bret Moore http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/12/21/xiha-com-after-the-udrp/#comment-96 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:10:29 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=375#comment-96 It relates, in my mind, to property law, Nate. It’s sort of a first-in-time, first-in-right idea. So I stake my claim on this little plot of Internet real estate in good faith, and then later I either give it to someone else or I abandon it and somebody else takes up residency there, pays the taxes, etc, and it becomes there plot of land. Whatever their motive or good/bad faith, the UDRP is not an effective eminent domain mechanism against that piece of property because … well … because it’s not a court proceeding. It’s probably unfair to have a single-member arbitration panel deciding whether somebody’s interest in the property is greater than another’s. So the UDRP does the good thing and says “we can’t decide this matter.” Note that they could still sue under the ACPA – and there, you don’t have to prove bad faith use AND bad faith registration at the time it was registered (I think you can get by just on bad faith use). Plus there’s statutory damages, up to $100,000 per domain name. So the incentives to settle/sell become much greater.

For all the flack it gets from domainers, I think the UDRP functions pretty well, honestly. It has some “flaws” but those are mostly because I don’t think we really want it deciding things like this.

]]> Comment on Xiha.com: After the UDRP by Jani penttinen http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/12/21/xiha-com-after-the-udrp/#comment-95 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:22:20 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=375#comment-95 Thank you for the valuable thoughts regarding the case. We in fact first attempted to buy the domain. It is a short domain, and even though clearly unused through entire history, it is valuable. The first asking price was 10k euros, which we couldn’t afford. As the business grew we approached the owner again. We were prepared to pay thousands of euros for it, up to 10k if needed. However, the owner’s response was that the domain now costs at least 100k euros, with no room for negotiation.

I can understand that it makes sense for the owner of the domain to ask for as high price as possible, but having registered hundreds of short domains years ago and sitting on them to milk future business owners just seems plain wrong. I mean, every year that goes by, the odds that the domain predates any potentially conflicting trade mark gets bigger. And it seems that the domain owner doesn’t need to have any intent to run a website, not even any idea that the name would ever be used – all he needed to do is bulk register a bunch of domains many years ago.

In case of xiha.com, there are almost no other potential buyers. I am guessing the thinking goes that our business grows big enough and we will eventually pay 100k or possible a lot more to gain control of the domain. If we don’t then it’s all just part of the gamble – continued ownership of the domain doesn’t cost anything.

]]> Comment on Xiha.com: After the UDRP by Nate Harris http://the-domain-blog.com/2010/12/21/xiha-com-after-the-udrp/#comment-94 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:28:06 +0000 http://the-domain-blog.com/?p=375#comment-94 I think you’re right, Bret. Even though bad faith use could be used to prove bad faith registration, the recent allegation of bad faith use is probably too remote in time from the original registration.

The consensus view is that a registration renewal is not a registration for purposes of bad faith. Why is that? Should domains be vulnerable to transfer or cancellation if they are renewed by a registrant using them in bad faith? Or is an initial good faith registration enough to forever insulate the registrant from the UDRP, no matter how the domain is used later?

]]>