News and Updates

A sock company, game store and more bought domains at Uniregistry

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-10-15 17:15

Here are some of the companies that bought domains at Uniregistry this week.

This Australian sock seller picked the domain name for its website.

Would a gaming shop in Bentonville, Arkansas pay $10,000 for a domain name so that it could move is online presence from just a Facebook page to an actual website? It appears so.

It’s just one of the end users that bought domain names at Uniregistry this past week.

Here’s what I could find about the top 20 domains that sold at the marketplace:

1. $18,000 – The domain has Whois privacy. This is another spelling of the drug ecstasy.

2. $17,000 – Another domain with Whois privacy that doesn’t resolve yet.

3. $15,000 – OHNE, which uses, bought the domain and forwards it to the .co domain. The company sells products for womens’ periods.

4. $12,000 – I believe the buyer is Premier Foods, which recently launched a product line called Plantastic.

5. $10,500 – Whois privacy and no indications about the buyer.

6. $10,000 – The domain may be for Canada, but it was bought by someone in Texas. Other than that, we don’t know much about the buyer.

7. $10,000 – It appears that a gaming store in Arkansas is upgrading from Facebook to a website.

8. $9,000 – The buyer also runs a site at with Oldsmobile car parts.

9. $8,200 – This appears to be a play on the word “host”, as in Airbnb hosts. It forwards to Airsorted, a business that helps short-term rental hosts manage their homes.

10. $8,000 – The domain is at GoDaddy using Whois privacy.

11. $8,000 – Whois shows the buyer is in Washington DC.

12. – $7,600 – This is likely related to a cryptocurrency project called Eagle Project.

13. $5,200 – What will you find on this website? Yep, socks.

14. $5,000 – Whois reveals that the buyer is a German company, but that’s all we have to work on for now.

15. $5,000 – It seems that a new London restaurant called Pantechicon bought the domain. It uses the domain

16. $3,900 – I can’t figure out anything about the buyer.

17. $3,500 – Whois shows a buyer in Oslo but nothing else.

18. $3,500 – Hairy Cell Leukemia is a rare type of cancer. I don’t know who bought the domain.

19. $3,500 – Chicago entrepreneur Scott Kitun bought the domain for his website.

20. $2,393 – It has Whois privacy and resolves to a registrar holding page.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. 19 end user sales…including one to Uniregistry
  2. What domains HP and others bought at Uniregistry last week
  3. Who bought domains at Uniregistry this past week
Categories: News and Updates

Domain Enforcement in a Post-GDPR World

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-10-15 15:20

Domain EnforcementIn a Post-GDPR World (A Complimentary Guide, Download Here)The implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and ICANN's conservative temporary policy, which favors privacy and limits registrar liability, has made domain enforcement against cybersquatters, cyber criminals and infringement more difficult, expensive and slow.

With heightened concerns over privacy following high-profile breaches of consumer data and its subsequent illicit use and distribution, there is no question that consumer data protection practices would come under scrutiny. GDPR is an attempt to address consumer privacy, and ICANN's temporary specification, which implements GDPR, allows wholesale redaction of registrant contact data for both consumers and those with malicious intent. The unintended result of ICANN's action is that, in most cases, little more than the registrant's country and state or province is now available in WHOIS records.

This has made it easier for individuals and/or entities with less than honorable intentions to operate anonymously. Fulfillment of requests from law enforcement, investigators, and intellectual property rights holders with a legitimate need for registrant contact data has been vastly reduced, and in many cases, has resulted in the doors being left wide open for the rampant abuse of domain registration.

Although this landscape might appear bleak at first glance, there are options for intellectual property holders and their legal teams to employ in a post-GDPR domain naming system (DNS). The redaction of the WHOIS records, while frustrating, doesn't necessarily mean effective brand protection in the DNS is out of reach.

Since the implementation of GDPR, by working with registrars and making requests for our clients, we've developed best practices on how to format, transmit, and justify registrant contact requests. We've discovered that there is a tremendous variety in how each request must be constructed. Each registrar has specific steps, leading to a diverse set of requirements that varies from registrar to registrar and in some cases, situation to situation. And, there are varied results depending upon the registrar and circumstances of the request.

As a result of this work, we've developed a set of notices that have assisted our clients in obtaining speedier and more efficient resolution of domain infringement issues. Brandholders can adapt and modify these notices to fit their strategies and goals.

Brands and their customers suffer the effects of fraud and the betrayal of trust when bad actors are allowed to operate with impunity online. To help combat abuses and make digital channels safer for everyone, we've decided to make those notices and observations about their application available to brandholders and their legal teams with an accompanying guide to domain enforcement post-GDPR.

Written by Frederick Felman, Chief Marketing Officer at AppDetex

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Management, Domain Names, Brand Protection, Law

Categories: News and Updates and hit with cybersquatting complaints

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-10-15 14:55

Two valuable dictionary word domains are subject to UDRP filings.

A chain of beauty salons in India that uses the domain is trying to get through UDRP.

After publishing my story this morning about the fight between a lotto company and Lotto Sport, a reader pointed out that was recently hit with a UDRP. It’s not the only recent filing against a valuable dictionary term domain name.

For, the case was filed by Bremer Toto und Lotto GmbH. The company uses the domain name I’m not sure how lotteries work in Germany, so perhaps a reader can chime in with information on if this is a local lotto or some sort of national lottery in Germany.

The domain is registered to a company called Cavour Ltd. based in Isle of Man.

The second domain that caught my attention is WIPO shows the Complainant to be Veena Kumaravel, an entrepreneur with a chain of 550 beauty salons in India that use the name Naturals. The company uses the domain

The domain is registered to Daegu Law Auction in Korea.

[Update: Elliot Silver has more info on]

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. “We The People, In Order to Acquire a More Perfect Domain Name…”
  2. College Hunks and Strong Students fight in court after UDRP
  3. Apple wins, its first UDRP victory of the year
Categories: News and Updates

Lotto Sport Italia and lotto company file dueling motions for summary judgment

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-10-15 13:51

Did a lotto company buy domains for its business or to cyber squat?

A battle over lotto-related domain names is about two-and-a-half years old, and it’s entering a critical period.

Lotto Sport Italia, the soccer apparel company, filed a cybersquatting dispute under UDRP against the domain names and at the beginning of 2017.

The domain names were purchased by a Canadian man who runs a lotto (as in gambling) business. David Dent acquired in September 2016 for $4,820 and then purchased in December 2016 for $6,500.

Lotto Sport won the UDRP. My take at the time was that this was an end user purchase of lotto-related domain names for a lotto business, but that Dent was not represented well in the UDRP response.

Dent sued to stop the transfer. Now, over two years later, both parties have filed motions for summary judgment in the case.

Will either party prevail in their motions? It’s difficult to say, but looking at this case from the outside, I belive my original supposition was correct: a lotto business bought domain names with the word lotto in them to operate its lotto business. It had no intention of infringing the rights of a soccer apparel company. It strains credulity to suggest otherwise.

We’ll see what the judge has to say.

The soccer company is represented by Marc Randazza. Its motion is here.

The lotto company is represented by John Berryhill and Jeffrey Johnson of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts. Its motion is here.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Mrs Jello sues to block transfer
  2. Valuable domain name hit with another cybersquatting complaint
  3. Stanley Pace sues for alleged Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Categories: News and Updates

China's App Allows "Superuser" Access to Entire Data of Over 100 Million Android-Based Phones

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-10-15 04:12

The Chinese Communist Party's app called 'Study the Great Nation' released in January is reported to have "superuser" access to the entire data of over 100 million Android-based phones via a backdoor. The propaganda app, billed as an educational tool, has been promoted aggressively throughout the year. The app was analyzed by the human rights activist group, Open Technology Fund (OTF), in partnership with the German cyber-security firm Cure53. "Earlier this year, it became the most downloaded app on the Chinese App Store, and the Chinese government claims that it now has over 100 million users," reports OTF, which revealed the results over the weekend. It adds: "The numbers are sky-high, with the Huawei store reporting 300 million downloads, and Wadoujia 195 million downloads. 'Study the Great Nation' features content like news articles and quizzes alongside a leaderboard where users' scores can be viewed alongside those of their coworkers."

What the audit found about the app's backdoor capabilities:

Superuser Privileges: "Contains code that amounts to a backdoor to rooted devices, essentially granting complete administrator-level access to a user's phone."

Scanning Apps: "Study the Great Nation actively scans to find other apps that are running on the user's device, drawing from a list of 960 applications."

Weak Encryption by Design: "While Study the Great Nation collects and transmits large amounts of personal user data, the app's security is weakened - seemingly by design - through the use of weak cryptographic algorithms in areas containing information linked to users' biometric data and emails."

Detailed Log Reports: "Cure53 also found that the app collects general information such as the device's unique IMEI number, connection information, information about app usage sessions, and location."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance, Privacy

Categories: News and Updates

China to Require Face Scan for Internet Access and New Phone Numbers Starting December

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-10-15 02:03

Chinese citizens will be required to let telecommunications carriers to scan their faces in order to sign up for internet access or to get a new phone number. The new rule, which is planned to take place starting December of this year, was announced by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) on September 27. Victoria Song reporting in Gizmodo writes: "On top of requiring carriers to use facial recognition to see whether an applicant matches their ID, people will no longer be able to transfer SIM cards to others. ... MIIT [also] wants carriers to verify whether mobile or landline phones are correctly registered under real names, and terminate those that aren't."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Censorship, Law, Policy & Regulation, Telecom

Categories: News and Updates

The Myth of 5G and Driverless Cars

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-10-15 01:18

A colleague sent me an article that had been published earlier this year in MachineDesign magazine that predicts that driverless cars can't be realized until we have a ubiquitous 5G network. When looking for the original article on the web I noticed numerous similar articles like this one in Forbes that have the same opinion.

These articles and other similar articles predict that high-bandwidth, low-latency 5G networks are only a few years away. I'm not quite sure who these folks think will invest the $100 billion or more that would likely be required to build such a wireless network along all of the roads in the country. None of the cellular carriers have such grandiose plans, and if they did, their stockholders would likely replace a management team that suggested such an investment.

It's easy to understand how this myth got started. When 5G was first discussed, the cellular companies listed self-driving cars as one of the reasons the government should support 5G. However, over time, they've all dropped this application from their 5G message, and it's no longer a cellular company talking point.

The idea that 5G is needed for self-driving cars is bolstered by the belief that the computing power of a data center is needed to process the massive amounts of data generated by a self-driving car. That very well may be true, and the current versions of self-driving cars are essentially data centers on wheels that contain several fast computers.

The belief that 5G will enable self-driving cars also comes from the promise of low latency, near to that of a direct fiber connection. The folks that wrote these articles envision a massive 2-way data transfer constantly happening with 5G for every self-driving car. I can't imagine they have ever talked to a network engineer about the challenge of creating 2-way wireless gigabit connections with hundreds of moving cars simultaneously on a freeway at rush hour. It's hard to envision the small cell site and fiber infrastructure needed to handle that without hiccups. I also don't know if the authors have recently driven down many rural reads recently to remind themselves of the huge challenge of implementing rural gigabit 5G.

The talk of using wireless for vehicles also ignores some fundamental issues. Wireless technologies are wonky in the real world. Radio waves do odd things in the wild, and every wireless network has dead zones and places where the system mysteriously won't work the way it's supposed to. Worse, the dead spots and odd spots move around with changes in temperature, humidity, and precipitation.

Network engineers also would advise that for a critical task like driving at high speeds that every vehicle should have a redundant back-up connection, meaning a second wireless connection in case the first one has a problem. Anybody that puts critical tasks on a fiber network invests in such redundancy. Hospitals that use broadband as part of a surgical procedure or a factory that does precision manufacturing will have a second fiber connection to be safe. It's hard to imagine a redundant connection for a moving car since the only place it can come from is the nearest cell sites that provide the primary connection.

I don't know how others feel about this, but I'm not about to trust my life to a self-driving car that needs a connection to an external data center to be safe. I know too much about how broadband networks function to believe that 5G networks will somehow always make perfect connections when other fiber networks don't.

One of the first things that came to my mind when I read these articles was to wonder what happens when there is a fiber outage on the network supporting the 5G cell sites. Do all of the self-driving cars just stop and wait for a broadband signal? I picture a city during an event like the 19-hour CenturyLink fiber outage a year ago and wonder if we are so stupid as to make our transportation systems reliant on external computing and external networks. I sure hope that we are not that dumb.

Written by Doug Dawson, President at CCG Consulting

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Mobile Internet, Telecom, Wireless

Categories: News and Updates

Interstate at Rush Hour …in the Rain …on a Friday – AKA, Your Enterprise Traffic on the Net

Domain industry news - Mon, 2019-10-14 22:45

Congestion. Traffic. Two words that draw a visceral response, whether you are commuting to work or managing a network.

Managing data traffic used to be easy. Everything was housed in centralized data centers, and all traffic was routed through big, dedicated, effective but expensive "pipes" — Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) links. When all the applications are at the data center, it makes sense to build private access for all traffic.

But, the move to the cloud and localized use of applications, analytics and data make the data highway systems much more complex. CIOs can't implement the same system they used to, as cloud applications are in too many places to build private data highways for all traffic. It would simply be too complex, costly and inefficient.
All network traffic is not the same today.

Today, there are three types of enterprise traffic: normal web browsing, two-way communications that require the query of a database in a legacy data center, and cloud applications where data, processing and security need to be pushed to the network's edge.

Normal web browsing can be pushed to the public Internet. Two-way legacy datacenter communications can still leverage MPLS or some other form of private connectivity. The traffic destined for applications in the cloud is what provides the biggest challenge to CIOs today. CIOs need a private highway that can provide exit ramps to all cloud providers and keep application processing distributed and close to all users.

Enter software-defined routing that can look at your data traffic mix and determine the best route from a speed, price and security perspective. You wouldn't use an 18-wheeler to deliver one carton of eggs, and you wouldn't use an MPLS to enable simple Web browsing. Software-defined routing ensures that you aren't using an anvil to pound in a thumbtack.

In a hybrid IT environment where centralized mission-critical functions still run through legacy datacenters, loss, latency and jitter are the unholy trinities of network congestion for a beleaguered CIO.

Too often, the competition with public video traffic leads IT organizations to move off the public Internet to a myriad of dedicated private networks to include broadband and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). While efficient in how they route traffic, these alternatives are very expensive toll-based solutions that can place significant financial burdens on IT budgets.

There is a way to improve the speed of your cloud data transport without adding to IT costs. In an industry known for buzzwords, SD-WAN (Software-Defined Wide Area Networks) has become one of the latest. But, what does it really do, and is it capable of alleviating the need for private data transport?

In short, yes.

Think of SD-WAN as Waze for your data traffic — on steroids. SD-WAN improves transport options, control pathways intelligently, automate provisioning, and optimize security with SD-WAN at the edge, ensuring that your business- and mission-critical applications aren't stuck in gridlock.

Written by Sean Kaine, VP of Product and Marketing at Apcela

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cloud Computing, Data Center, Networks

Categories: News and Updates

EU Member States Release Report on Coordinated Risk Assessment on Cybersecurity in 5G Networks

Domain industry news - Mon, 2019-10-14 22:35

European Union Member States published a report on the 'EU coordinated risk assessment on cybersecurity in Fifth Generation (5G) networks'. The report is based on the results of the national cybersecurity risk assessments by all EU Member States. It identifies the main threats and threats actors, the most sensitive assets, the main vulnerabilities, and several strategic risks. From the release:

"5G networks is the future backbone of our increasingly digitised economies and societies. Billions of connected objects and systems are concerned, including in critical sectors such as energy, transport, banking, and health, as well as industrial control systems carrying sensitive information and supporting safety systems. Ensuring the security and resilience of 5G networks is, therefore, essential."

The report identifies out various effects that the 5G network roll-out is expected to have including these:

"Due to new characteristics of the 5G network architecture and new functionalities, certain pieces of network equipment or functions are becoming more sensitive, such as base stations or key technical management functions of the networks."

"An increased exposure to risks related to the reliance of mobile network operators on suppliers. This will also lead to a higher number of attacks paths that might be exploited by threat actors and increase the potential severity of the impact of such attacks. Among the various potential actors, non-EU States or State-backed are considered as the most serious ones and the most likely to target 5G networks."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybersecurity, Mobile Internet, Networks, Wireless

Categories: News and Updates

Lawyer labels domain investing “Anticipatory Cybersquatting”

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-10-14 16:57

Article published by ABA could lead trademark holders astray.

I was doing some research this weekend when I came across an article published by American Bar Association in June. The article by Tamara Kurtzman, a California attorney, rails against the practice of buying domain names for future sale to companies that may want to use them. Kurtzman calls this “anticipatory cybersquatting.”

Kurtzman blames people registering domains that might someday be similar to trademarks for causing a “frustration of corporate opportunity.”

She notes that not all of this activity is bad, though.

It is important to note, however, that not all instances of anticipatory cybersquatting quash legitimate business opportunity. Specifically, as the harms associated with this practice derive primarily from an interference with a trademark holder’s trademark rights, the registration of domain names that cannot be trademarks in the first place (such as generic terms) do not compromise corporate opportunity.

Aren’t most trademarks made up of “generic” terms?

Kurtzman explains that the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) doesn’t effectively counter “ancticipatory cybersquatting” because the trademark has to be distinctive or famous at the time the domain is registered.

She contrasts this with UDRP, in which she makes a startling statement:

Although the UDRP does not directly prohibit anticipatory cybersquatting, it is currently the preferable means of extricating a domain name from anticipatory cybersquatters in many circumstances. Unlike the ACPA, the UDRP does not require that the domain name at issue be distinctive or famous at the time of registration. As such, even holders of after-acquired trademark rights may seek relief under the UDRP.

The UDRP specifically states that the domain must have been “registered and used in bad faith”. So if it was registered before the Complainant had a trademark, then it’s not a case subject to transfer under UDRP because it couldn’t have been registered in bad faith to target the new trademark holder.

Kurtzman clarifies:

In light of these largely ineffective efforts, UDRP panels have been increasingly broadening their interpretations of the bad-faith UDRP element in order to find against anticipatory cybersquatters. Specifically, administrative panels increasingly are willing to rule that, even though a trademark holder may have acquired trademark rights after the registration of a domain name, action by the domain registrant that seeks to take advantage of a complainant’s goodwill in its mark is sufficient to constitute bad faith under the UDRP. Similarly, UDRP panels increasingly have been willing to find that website inactivity (a respondent’s passive holding of the domain) is evidence of bad-faith use and registration in that it suggests registration for the purpose of selling the domain for profit.

I’m not sure what timeframe Kurtzman is considering, but I don’t find panels to be “increasingly broadening their interpretations.” It is true that some rogue panelists have tried to bend the plain language of UDRP to find in favor of Complainants, but this practice seems to have significantly diminished, especially since the release of the WIPO 3.0 update in 2017.

Also, filing a UDRP when trademark rights postdate the registration is grounds for being found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. As stated in WIPO’s overview:

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant’s lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith (see generally section 3.8) such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights,…

I could not find any UDRP cases in which the author has been listed as representative by searching UDRPSearch and


© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. UDRP has its limits when it comes to taking down counterfeit websites
  2. Cybersquatting or RDNH? You decide.
  3. Pickleball cybersquatting dispute ends in kitchen violation
Categories: News and Updates

Improving GoDaddy – DNW Podcast #257

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-10-14 15:30

A discussion about GoDaddy and how to improve it.

GoDaddy has made many improvements to its domain platform. What more can it do to make the experience better for domain investors going forward? On today’s show, Shane Cultra and I discuss some ideas for the company that dominates the domain name aftermarket.

Also: Pablo Escobar, domain hijacking, .UK, .Uno, and Tucows sends its cows out to pasture.

Subscribe via Apple Podcasts to listen to the Domain Name Wire podcast on your iPhone or iPad, view on Google Play Music, or click play above or download to begin listening. (Listen to previous podcasts here.)

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Paul Nicks of GoDaddy – DNW Podcast #160
  2. Chad Folkening – DNW Podcast #154
  3. How to avoid UDRP – John Berryhill – DNW Podcast #170
Categories: News and Updates

Pickleball cybersquatting dispute ends in kitchen violation

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-10-14 15:04

Panelist finds reverse domain name hijacking in pickleball domain dispute.

That’s me playing pickleball on Court No. 1, where the game was invented.

An Oregon man has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over a pickleball domain name.

Trevor Meier filed a dispute with National Arbitration Forum in an effort to get the domain name The domain is owned by a person in Florida who runs That person forwards the subject domain to and the headline on that site is “Welcome to Pickleball Global Network”.

Meier appeared to believe that he could get the domain name from the Respondent if he had a trademark for “Global Pickleball Network” even though the Respondent owned the domain before he started his business.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Charles Kuechenmeister wrote:

Complainant is not represented by legal counsel in this proceeding but the evidence of bad faith in bringing this action is compelling and even a person not familiar with UDRP practice should have known that doing so was fundamentally wrong. In August of 2018, one year before bringing this case, Complainant called Respondent to tell him that he was planning to start a business called “Global Pickleball Network” and requested Respondent to sell him the Domain Name. Respondent refused, explaining that he had been using the Domain Name in connection with his operations for several years and wanted to continue to do so. At that point, Complainant became aggressive and informed Respondent that he planned to start his business under the name mentioned, that he would obtain a trademark registration for it, and force Respondent to turn the Domain Name over to him (Response Exhibit A). Complainant then took those actions, with full knowledge of Respondent’s business and his rights in the Domain Name. Respondent notes that one year later, when the USPTO registration was issued, Complainant filed this proceeding the same day. Respondent also notes that one of the grounds for a finding of bad faith alleged by Complainant is that Respondent refused to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for any amount of money. This is just the reverse of the circumstance articulated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). It is clear that, for whatever reason, Complainant believes himself entitled to the Domain Name and initiated this proceeding to obtain it, without regard for any of the requirements imposed by the Policy.

Complainant knew or should have known that he would be unable to prove that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name or that Respondent registered and was using the Domain Name in bad faith. This meets well-established criteria for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

In pickleball, a “kitchen violation” is when you hit the ball out of the air standing too close to the net. The play is dead in favor of the other team when you commit a kitchen violation. It seems like an apt description of this case.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Dubai Law Firm Nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
  2. Panel won’t find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking due to whois privacy
  3. Defunct app maker hit with reverse domain name hijacking
Categories: News and Updates

Celebrating Twenty Years of the UDRP

Domain industry news - Mon, 2019-10-14 09:03

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, commonly known as the UDRP, was first introduced on October 24, 1999, by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The UDRP is incorporated by reference into Registration Agreements for all generic top-level domain names (gTLDs) and some country-code top-level domain names (ccTLDs).

The Policy sets out the legal framework for resolving disputes between a domain name registrant and a third party over the registration and use of a specific domain name. Over the last twenty years, the number of registered domain names has dramatically increased, reaching over 354 million registrations this year. The UDRP has become the primary route to resolve domain name disputes.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is one of the main providers for domain disputes and has processed over 45,000 cases to date. Besides gTLDs, which all fall under the UDRP, WIPO provides domain dispute resolution services for 76 ccTLDs. In total, six accredited providers administer UDRP complaints, the Forum being the second largest provider.

The Evolution of the UDRP

The purpose of the UDRP is to combat cybersquatting, which, according to the US Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) is defined as "registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else”.

Since the very first case under the UDRP, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, WIPO Case No. D99-0001, which was decided by Panelist M. Scott Donahey, the UDRP has dealt with many complex issues involving a significant number of domain names. Indeed, WIPO has administered over 45,000 cases involving over 83,000 domain names since the UDRP's creation. The top 2 industry sectors in terms of Complainant activity are retail, and the banking and finance industry, which respectively amounts to 10.36% and 10.05%.

The UDRP has also seen Complainants and Respondents coming from countries all around the world. Complainants in the United States account for almost 35% of cases filed, followed by France (12.48%) and the United Kingdom (8.10%). However, while domain registrants primarily reside in the United States with over 30% of cases filed, People's Republic of China is the second-ranked country where registrants are based, amounting to 11.22% of cases filed since 1999.

When filing UDRP cases, Complainants need to rely on UDRP jurisprudence to build their cases. Although Panelists are under no obligation to follow past decisions, case precedents form a significant part of the UDRP, which has helped the Policy to develop over the years. With the high number of decisions decided each year, the growing need to identify consensus in UDRP jurisprudence became even more vital.

WIPO Overviews and the UDRP Jurisprudence

Since the creation of the UDRP, law practitioners have always expressed the need for a document summarising consensus views among the UDRP Panelists. Based on this request, WIPO introduced Version 1.0 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions in 2005. In 2011, WIPO Overview 2.0 launched, which examined 46 issues in UDRP decisions. WIPO Overview 2.0 was in use for six years, and it was only on May 23rd, 2017 that WIPO launched the third version (WIPO Overview 3.0). This version discussed 64 issues with more than 1,000 decisions cited.

Key changes took place between the two versions. Between 2011 and 2017, the emergence of new gTLDs impacted the importance of the domain suffix. TLDs such as ".clothing" or ".tech" for example, now have more weight when assessing bad faith. One of the pioneer cases which discussed this issue is Canyon Bicycles GmbH v. Domains By Proxy, LLC/ Rob van Eck, WIPO Case No. D2014-0206, where the Panel held that "given the advent of multiple new gTLD domain names, panels may determine that it is appropriate to include consideration of the top-level suffix of a domain name for the purpose of the assessment of identity or similarity in a given case, and indeed, there is nothing in the wording of the Policy that would preclude such an approach”.

As a result, the use of new gTLDs, which imply a link to the trademark owner can add to Internet user confusion, and for this reason, is considered under the first element, as well as the third element when assessing bad faith. Internationalised domain names (IDN) are also becoming more popular in recent years, with Internet users registering non-Latin or symbolic domain names. UDRP Panelists have adapted to this change and now consider translations or transliterations of domain names in their deliberations.

Through the years, the UDRP has tackled various issues, but some decisions are cited more than others. The case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 remains the most cited case, with a frequency of 8,088 times. This decision, the fourth case ever decided by a UDRP Panel, tackled the issue of inactive domain names. The decision set out conditions by which the passive holding of a domain name still amounted to bad faith use. Since the decision in Telstra, trademark owners continue to rely on the principles outlined in this case when addressing a domain name that fails to resolve to active content. Though passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use, trademark owners must not forget that they still have the burden to prove registration in bad faith.

The second most popular UDRP decision is, without a doubt, the case of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D20001-0903. Here, the Panelist David H. Bernstein raised the difficult question of whether an authorized sales or service agent of trademarked goods could use the trademark at issue in its domain name. In his decision, the Panel held that specific conditions must be met by the reseller to justify a legitimate interest in using a domain name containing the trademark's owner brand. Though this decision was published in the early stages of the UDRP in 2001, reseller cases still apply the Oki Data decision when assessing if a reseller can justify a legitimate interest in its domain name. Following this decision, uncertainty arose over whether this case also applied to unauthorized resellers. The decision, Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Auto Shivuk, WIPO Case No. D2005-0447 clarified this, finding that the Oki Data decision could apply to both authorized and unauthorized resellers.

The two decisions cited above are among the most popular cases used in UDRP disputes, but several more Panel decisions have helped shape UDRP jurisprudence. This includes, among others, the issue of proving common law or unregistered trademark rights, which led to several well-known decisions, such as Uitgerverij Crux v. W. Frederic Isler, WIPO Case No. D2000-0575 (discussing this for the first time), and the case of Israel Harold Asper v. Communication X Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0540, which clarified that rights in a personal name are recognized under the UDRP if the name has been used in a commercial manner, which the complaining party, a Canadian businessman and lawyer, had failed to establish.

For trademark owners and legal practitioners, WIPO Overview 3.0 remains the ultimate resource when filing domain disputes. With more than 1,000 cases listed, Panelists always advise trademark owners to use the cases cited in the Overview.

Following the guidelines provided can also help to prevent trademark owners from being found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH").

RDNH is when a trademark owner attempts to use the UDRP to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name. 2016 saw a record number of RDNH in UDRP cases, with 37 complainants found to have abused the UDRP Policy. This surpassed the previous record with 31 RDNH decisions issued in 2015. Complainants are found guilty of RDNH for various reasons. One reason often found is that the Complainant knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one the essential elements required by the UDRP, perhaps because the domain name was registered many years before it acquired rights in a mark. This has led many Respondent to claim that such cases be barred based on the doctrine of laches.

Doctrine of Laches – Time to Reconsider?

Traditionally, the question of timing was a factor to consider when assessing whether a complaining party had a legitimate right to bring a claim against another entity on the grounds of trademark infringement. Under the US doctrine of laches, a trademark claim is barred if a defendant can show that a prolonged period has passed between the registration of the plaintiff's trademark and the alleged infringement. That said, when it comes to domain names, the doctrine does not apply. WIPO Overview 3.0, Guideline 4.17 states that:

"Panels have widely recognized that mere delay between the registration of a domain name and the filing of a complaint neither bars a complainant from filing such case, nor from potentially prevailing on the merits."

Panels noted that the UDRP remedy is injunctive, and the principal concern is to avoid future abuse/damage, and not provide equitable relief. Panels have also recognized that trademark owners cannot reasonably be expected to monitor every instance of potential trademark abuse or to enforce each instance as they arise. For these reasons, Panels have declined to adopt the doctrine of laches or its equivalent in UDRP cases.

Even so, some Panels have taken account of the delay of a Complainant to bring a complaint under the UDRP when making their decision. In the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v., LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1139, the doctrine of laches was discussed at great length. Though the decision rejected the use of laches, the Panel held that "the delay and lack of explanation for it strengthen Respondent's cases for a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and negate Complainant's case that the Domain Name has been used in bad faith. That is so because the unchallenged evidence is that Complainant, by inactivity, encouraged Respondent to continue to use the Domain Name in the way in which Complainant knew it was being used”.

Still, finding for the Respondent based on laches alone is not possible under the UDRP, and Panels would only deny complaints if Complainants have failed to establish the substantive grounds required under the Policy. For example, in the recent case of The Pennsylvania State University v. Mark Lauer/ Keystone Alternatives, NAF Claim FA1847529, July 29, 2019, the Panel denied the complaint as the trademark owner failed to prove that the registrant had no legitimate interest in the domain name, and consequently, did not act in bad faith. The Respondent, in this case, relied on the doctrine of laches and asked for the complaint to be denied on those grounds, but the Panel held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the proceeding would or should have been denied on the ground of laches alone.

Twenty years after the creation of the UDRP, Panels will see more and more cases brought with domain names registered 15 to 20 years ago, and the delay in bringing a complaint by a trademark holder may have more significance to a Respondent than ever before.

Another significant event already having a tremendous effect on the UDRP is the implementation of the new European data protection law in 2018.

GDPR and its effect on the UDRP

Since the new European data protection law (General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679) came into force on May 25th, 2018, the number of UDRP disputes has increased. Indeed, with GDPR coming into effect last year, law practitioners have seen changes in the disclosure of WHOIS details. Before GDPR, the WHOIS Registry was publically accessible, and trademark owners and their representatives could identify a domain name owner before filing a dispute. Now, however, GDPR has made it more difficult to engage with domain registrants. With most information unavailable, it seems that more practitioners now file cases in an attempt to disclose registrant information. Once revealed, Complainants have the opportunity to amend the dispute to reflect the Respondent's correct details.

Furthermore, GDPR has made UDRP consolidations even more challenging. The UDRP allows trademark owners to include multiple domain names in a single complaint. The limitations placed on WHOIS information prevent trademark owners from identifying additional domain names owned by the same cybersquatter. This is likely to lead to trademark owners needing to file more single complaints, which is more expensive and time-consuming.

The UDRP element most affected by the GDPR is the third circumstance that deals with bad faith. Showing an abusive pattern of conduct has become more complex, and trademark owners have more of a difficult task of finding past cybersquatting activity. The tools previously available to investigators to analyze a registrants' previous dispute record or portfolio have become less effective with the arrival of GDPR. While an investigator's job has become more challenging, the UDRP remains one of the most effective tools to combat cybersquatting in the Internet world.

What is next for the UDRP?

A lot has changed since the creation of the UDRP, and with new issues arising, the Policy has evolved to be in line with the fast-pacing change of the Internet. The new generation of TLDs contributed to the rise of UDRP filings, but ".com" domain names still amount to 79% of cases filed. The ccTLD ".co" assigned to Colombia is the most popular ccTLD using the UDRP, with 56 cases filed this year.

Nevertheless, despite the increase in filings, after two decades, some practitioners/groups believe that some essential elements of the UDRP are due for reform. In 2015, ICANN issued a Preliminary Issue Report to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs followed up by a working group which was established to review and possibly reform RPMs, including the UDRP, which is yet to be reviewed.

In the meantime, the UDRP continues — 20 years after its creation — to be the most effective tool to combat cybersquatting, saving time and money to trademark owners.

* * *

On October 21, 2019, WIPO organizes a conference to commemorate this milestone. This event, where over 100 UDRP Panelists will attend, will look back at the UDRP jurisprudence, and look ahead on the future of the UDRP, Internet developments, and other topical items. As one of the top-ranking filers of domain name disputes with WIPO, Safenames' Legal Department will be attending this event, which will be held at WIPO's headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Written by Caroline Valle, Senior Legal Adviser at Safenames

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Management, Domain Names, UDRP

Categories: News and Updates

The Loss of a Friend

Domain industry news - Sat, 2019-10-12 16:18

Tarek Kamel, 1961–2019Dear colleagues and friends, it is very, very difficult to write these words. The loss of a young person is always a tragedy. The untimely loss of a friend is even worse and is always a very difficult time. The loss of a fellow Internet pioneer is like losing a brother.

Tarek Kamel was a great friend of the Internet Society–Bulgaria. I remember him giving an interview for the Bulgarian public television in Yokohama during the INET 2000 meeting (I hope to be able to find this interview in the coming weeks) — praising our chapter for the elimination of all licenses and registration regimes in the country. In 2002 he sent his chapter condolences to ISOC Bulgaria, when we lost (also very untimely!) our co-founder and board member Mitko Kirov.

I remember him as the ISOC–Egypt leader, and then as an advisor to the minister of ICT, and then as a minister.

I also had the luck to work with him at ICANN, when he became responsible for the government engagement, and I witnessed first hand his great skills and talent to navigate the organization in the challenging times of international Internet-related negotiations.

Tarek was the same person, no matter where he worked — kind, humble, thoughtful, always ready to listen, and give advice, always ready to suggest a new solution to any problem. I wish we all were as humble as he was.

Tarek and myself at the the UN, 2014.
Photo: UN ASG, ThomasGasI remember a story few years ago when I introduced him to a friend of mine at the World Bank. My friend told Tarek, "Ah, I remember you, when you built the Cybercity in Egypt...", and Tarek interrupted him kindly, "No, no… I didn't build it. My boss built it, and I just had to go and cut the ribbon, as I was by that time, the minister. But it was the previous minister, my boss, who by that time was already prime minister, who actually built it."

He always gave credit, where credit was due, and never took credit for someone else's work. I wish we all were as precise as he was.

Anywhere I'd go — at the UN or other UN agencies, when I would see someone from Egypt, they will always mention Tarek in the most positive ways. His former staffers always talked of him with great respect, and would address him kindly as "Doctor Tarek." Earlier this year in Geneva, I saw a former colleague of his, and I encouraged her to go and see him in the hospital. She just sent me a note thanking me for encouraging her to reach out, as she had one more opportunity to spend time with him. We all liked spending time with him, and he was always happy to see people around him, even when he was going through tough times — especially during tough times.

He was in some ways like a real doctor — always ready to listen to someone's issue, always ready to suggest a "treatment" of a problem. I wish we all listen more and try to help as he did.

And in all different ways, and always, he was a good Person, with a capital "p."

I hope we all strive to be as good as he was. I know it's difficult, but that's one of the (many) lessons I learned from him — that we should be good, when we are confronting challenging times, because it's easy to be good, when things are going well, but it's really good to behave well, when times are tough.

Tarek, you're already missed. Rest In Peace, my friend.

More about Tarek can be found here.

Written by Veni Markovski

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Internet Governance

Categories: News and Updates

Gartner Says SDN Has Left the Building – Say Hello to Network Automation

Domain industry news - Fri, 2019-10-11 15:51

In their annual hype cycle on on network technologies, Gartner lists the emerging technologies and an estimate of the timeframe in which they will reach the plateau of productivity. The latest hype cycle on enterprise networking labels Software-Defined Networks (SDN) as an obsolete technology. So on the surface, it would appear that SDN is now semi-officially dead.

While most natural scientists accept the Darwinian theories, the technology industry has traditionally been trying to defy evolution. Every 10-20 years, new revolutionary technology is born with the expectation that it will completely transform how a certain thing is being done. Assuming that Gartner's analysis of SDN is correct, it would appear that it has moved on to the nowhere land of promising technologies that never happened.

Yet when one thinks about it, the development of technologies tends to advance in waves of incremental improvements. A good example is electric cars. Most of the technologies needed to build them have been around for decades. However, it required a major catalyst like climate change to start their journey to the mainstream. And while the transformation of the automotive industry is getting into full swing now, there still are many familiar elements from the previous technology generations that make up a good 90% of the electric cars offered in the showrooms.

Networks are no different in this regard. While SDN may well be dead in the water, it does not necessarily mean that the school of thought it represents should be forgotten or obsoleted. Quite the opposite. SDN is all about programmability, agility and resulting service elasticity, which I believe will remain at the core of future networks.

If not SDN, then what?

When engineers fall in love with a specific technology, they often forget that most people do not care how something has been implemented. Instead, what they care about is convenience and utility. Like the slow uptake of IPv6 shows, even the most eloquent of technologies struggle to be adopted when they are not powered by a megatrend that drives concrete benefits to end-users.

Looking at the industry trends, the 2010s have been all about cloud computing and digital transformation. While networks remain an important piece of this puzzle, SDN, in its purest form, is too big a leap to take at once. Enterprises and service providers around the world have invested hundreds of billions into the network infrastructure they have today. The assumption that they would write off all these investments may err to the side of optimism.

That said, what we are seeing increasingly today are the features pioneered by Software-Defined Networks being implemented using alternate methods. Programmability leading to service agility, better performance characteristics, and lower latency are all key factors when new networks are being designed. In the cloud-native era, any new business infrastructure that lacks these abilities will not have a very long future ahead of it.

Instead of SDN, these architectures are being implemented using automation frameworks and orchestrators such as Ansible and Open Network Architecture Platform (ONAP). These technologies allow organizations to introduce automation to even existing network devices. Network automation reduces the largest cost of networks of today; downtime caused by manual mistakes. Automation is perhaps one of the highest yielding investments an entity running its network can make.

There are, of course, new use cases, especially in the enterprise space where emerging network technologies such as Software-Defined Wide Area Networks (SD-WAN) and virtual extensions of the enterprise network such as AWS VPC and Azure VNET make perfect sense. Both differ significantly from how enterprise networks have traditionally been run. While these technologies are still rather young, the chances are that the future of networks is in automation that allows both these new technologies and the traditional networks to co-exist side by side through the 2020s.


While SDN in the academic sense may not gain the traction it was initially hoped to, it has paved the way for network automation that is used on a much broader scale. Rather than forcing a tightly defined new network paradigm such as SDN upon service providers and enterprises, the industry is headed towards agnostic network automation frameworks that are driven by the business objectives rather than an academic definition. The technologies facilitating the transformation in this area are network automation frameworks such as Open Network Automation Platform (ONAP) and orchestrators such as Ansible.

Written by Juha Holkkola, Co-Founder and Chief Technologist at FusionLayer Inc.

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Cloud Computing, Data Center, Networks

Categories: News and Updates

Panelist declines RDNH because…well, I don’t know

Domain Name Wire - Fri, 2019-10-11 15:38

Moonchul Chang doesn’t give a reason for not finding reverse domain name hijacking in a dead-on-arrival case.

A World Intellectual Property Panelist has decided a UDRP decision for the domain name in favor of the domain name owner. But for an inexplicable reason, he declined to find reverse domain name hijacking.

The circumstances have all of the trappings of reverse domain name hijacking:

  • Domain owner registered it in 2000
  • Complainant wasn’t formed until 2007 and the trademark it relies on was registered in 2015 with first use claim of 2012
  • Complainant sent several communications to the domain owner, which the owner describes as “offers” and then a cease & desist
  • Company files UDRP

Based on the information in the published decision, it’s a classic case of RDNH. The domain owner asked for RDNH, but panelist Moonchul Chang declined to find it without really giving a reason. Instead, he merely wrote:

The Panel cannot conclude that the Complainant filed its Complaint in bad faith for the purposes of RDNH, and mere lack of success of the Complaint is not in itself sufficient for a finding of RDNH.

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has not filed its Complaint in bad faith as an attempt at RDNH.

That’s like a panelist ruling that a domain was registered in bad faith by writing “The panel concludes the domain was registered in bad faith” without giving any reason.

Instead, according to the information in the decision, this case was dead on arrival due to the chronology.

The Complainant, Miami International Holdings, Inc, was also represented by counsel. It uses the domain name

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Saved, But Panel Doesn’t Consider Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
  2. Eyeglass Company Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
  3. Owner of Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Categories: News and Updates

The "Kiwi" Way of Interneting

Domain industry news - Thu, 2019-10-10 20:03

By now, we are all exposed to the narrative of how the Internet is no longer a safe place. It is full of bots, misinformation, abuse and violence; it is a space that has been overtaken by terrorists and extremists. The Internet is weaponized to influence elections, undermine democracies, and instill fear in its users. That's the story we are told.

No one can deny the swift change that is taking place in global politics. The "brave new world" that has emerged is, currently, based on isolation and fear. We have officially entered the politics of fear.

How true is this though? How real is fear on the Internet?

Arguably, fear is as old as life. It is deeply part of all living organisms that have survived extinction through billions of years of evolution. Its roots go deep in our biological and psychological existence, and it is one of the most intimate feelings we get to experience. Demagogues have always used fear as a means to intimidate their subordinates or enemies, while shepherding the tribe by the leaders. Fear is a very strong tool that can blur humans' logic and change their behavior.

Fear has become part of the Internet experience. Every week there is another data breach, another privacy violation, child abusive content proliferates, questionable forums like 8chan are increasing, and people are constantly bullied for expressing — or not expressing — their opinions. The Internet is a dark place. That's the only story we get to hear. That's the story world leaders — democratic and not — tell to justify their attempts to control the Internet and turn it into a centralized and restricted space. This is the global trend. But is it?

In the past ten days, I have been fortunate to spend some time in New Zealand. What a pleasant surprise it has been. I left the European way of Interneting, a way that is based on distrust, individualism, and fear, only to be exposed to the Kiwi way, which is based on trust, collaboration, and hope. I, myself, had lost hope that such a way still exists.

March 15, 2019, is the date New Zealanders — and the rest of the world — will never forget. A gunman carrying two semi-automatic weapons, two shotguns, and a lever-action firearm opened fire indiscriminately at two mosques in Christchurch during Friday prayer. The first attack was live-streamed on Facebook. It was viewed 200 times during its live broadcast and 4000 times in total before it was removed. According to Facebook, the company was notified about the live stream 12 minutes after the video had ended. Over the 24 hours following the attack, individuals attempted to re-upload the video 1.5 million times.

New Zealand had a choice to make: succumb to fear or hang on to hope. And, it chose the latter. Post-Christchurch, the government of New Zealand, did not order a shutdown of the Internet or its services; it did not rush through legislation that sought to regulate the way companies and users interact on the Internet. Its government did not engage in fear-mongering. Instead, led by its Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand turned to the international community asking for collaboration to address what she considered to be a global issue — how to deal with extremist and violent content online (what would become the "Christchurch call"). In praising this collaborative approach during my panel intervention at NetHui, New Zealand's version of an Internet governance dialogue, I was told: "this is the Kiwi way of doing things." Well, the Kiwi way is also the Internet way. Bringing people together to collaborate to solve "wicked problems" and address complex questions has been the "Internet way" all along. Without necessarily realizing it, New Zealand was upholding one of the Internet's most fundamental properties.

During her speech at NetHui, the Prime Minister recognized the challenges the Internet is facing and the slow progress post-Christchurch. Yet again, this did not make her move into panic mode. Instead, she reaffirmed and recommitted to an open, secure, and free Internet. She mentioned that she still believes in the ability of the Internet to bring positive change; to be the space of expression and creativity; to be the engine of unstoppable innovation. She said she wanted to do the right thing.

Let's not miss the significance of this. Without intending, New Zealand has become an example of how we must all approach the challenges we face on the Internet; it has become the Internet's champion. Sure, there are still things that the Kiwis need to learn about the Internet and understand better the way it works. Sure the "Christchurch call" process has its own deficiencies and issues. But, ultimately, it is all about New Zealand's willingness not to close, shut down, centralize or try to control the Internet that they must be commended.

The 'kiwi way' of Interneting must not go unnoticed. It must become a lesson for the rest of the world leaders.

Written by Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Director, Policy Development and Implementation, Internet Society

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance

Categories: News and Updates

Registration now open for domain name auction

Domain Name Wire - Thu, 2019-10-10 18:00

Original owners of domain name send it to the auction block.

Companies interested in acquiring the valuable domain name can now register for the auction at

The auction will begin October 24 and it follows an unusual format.

It begins with a sealed bid auction process in which bidders can submit a single bid. Once someone bids the secret “buy now” price, that bidder wins the auction so long as no other company submitted a higher bid on the same day. It seems that the most likely scenario of having multiple bidders meet the reserve price on the same day would be on the first day of the auction.

If none of the sealed bids meet the reserve price, the sellers will either accept the highest sealed bid or push the domain to a public auction. The reserve price carries over to the public auction. is handling the financial side of the auction. It will hold $25,000 bidder deposits and be the escrow for the winning bidder. Amsterdam company Auction-Experts will manage the bidding.


© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Rick Latona Domain Name Auction Off to Screaming Start
  2. Stars May Align for Moniker Domain Name Auction at 3PM Today
  3. HP Puts Domain Name on the Auction Block
Categories: News and Updates sells for £42,500, showing .net isn’t dead

Domain Name Wire - Thu, 2019-10-10 17:36

This sale shows the .net market isn’t dead.

If there’s one big top level domain that was hurt by the launch of new top level domain names, it’s .net. .Net has typically been a “darn, I couldn’t get the .com” domain extension. Now people can choose from a bunch of other options.

So the sale of at Sedo for £42,500 (which just came across the company’s RSS feed) is notable. It’s the equivalent of about $53,000 at today’s exchange rate.

NameBio’s all-time list of .net sales over this amount totals 63 names. But no .net domains have publicly sold for this much in the past 12 months.

It’s a big sale for a .net domain, and it shows a bit of life for the extension.

The buyer appears to be a company called Edito. Although the domain was once forwarded to a Sudoku site, it doesn’t appear to have been for many years and a backlink check shows no links.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

No related posts.

Categories: News and Updates

15 end user domain sales up to $40,000

Domain Name Wire - Thu, 2019-10-10 13:32

A Celtic bookseller, Spanish blog network and Shopify bought domain names this past week.

Sedo’s top sale this past week was Sexe(.)com at EUR 210,000, but it’s not clear if it’s an end user purchase or not. Sexe means sex in French.

The top end user purchase is a financial company that is launching a brand under the name Hey Money. It smartly purchased both and

Here’s a look at recent end users sales at Sedo. See prior end user lists here. $40,000 and $8,888 – Advanced Planning Solutions filed a trademark in August for Hey Money for financial services, and ostensibly is the buyer of both of these domains. €35,000 – Oscio Networks LLC runs a network of blogs in Spain. $12,000 – Forwards to, a hosting services company in Chile.

Investors.Club $7,000 – There’s a page saying the site is under construction. Whois has a privacy service so I don’t know who is creating the site.

InStars(.)com $5,000 – Instars is a new cryptocurrency platform in development. €4,000 – Forwards to, the site for Antenna Technology Bad Blankenburg, a high-tech company that designs intelligent multi-functional antennas for the automotive industry. It also provides communications services, radio and smart meter applications for the energy sector and the device industry. $4,000 – Bought by Sonnenberg Manufaktur AG, a German furniture manufacturer. $3,750 – Bought by Casement Publishers and Distributors who provide sales, marketing and distribution services for book publishers, in both the academic and trade fields. It has a focus on Celtic books. €3,250 – Forwards to, an online wine community and app. It is buying some of the ccTLD versions including the .es name last week. $3,000 – Ecommerce platform Shopify bought the Peru country code version of its domain. €2,999 – Forwards to, a quick loan service in Spain. $2,500 – A coming soon page for the site has a picture of a dog and the message “Mo Knows things. Lots of things. So many things. Give us a few Mo-ments to get his site ready.” $2,350 – Aqua Research is a a water treatment company that uses It forwards the shorter domain to it. $2,155 – SellSage LLC appears to be a new business in Michigan.

This post was updated to correct the price for

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. More end user domain name sales
  2. A big week for end user domain name sales
  3. What domains BMW and other end users bought last week
Categories: News and Updates

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer