Home » Archive by category Internet News (Page 662)

Update on Top 10 Sales from a Year Ago: Wave.com, Santa.org, Equals.net, More

Domain Shane Domain Shane: Listed below are updates on the top 10 domain sales from a year ago, as ranked by DN Journal.
1. Wave.com sold for $420,000
This domain was an upgrade from SendWave.com for the payments company based in New York which was established back in 2014. “Instant, no fee transfers from the US, UK, and Canada to Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ghana with the best rates.” The site doesn’t have an Alexa rank.

2. GodOfIsrael.com sold for $24,888
The same buyer picked up TheGodOfIsrael.com for $6,000, which is what they’re using for their website which they describe as, “Information on the holy LORD God and His son the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Adonai Yehoshua HaMoshiach)”

3. Slither.com sold for $22,600
The domain is parked and under privacy protection.
4. Santa.org sold for $13,500
The domain was picked up by the individual behind the TextsFromSanta.com website, which has nearly 150,000 followers on Facebook. Santa.org appears like it was set up to be a feeder to the texts site.

5. SalesManagementSoftware.com sold for $12,377
An under construction page is live. It’s owned by TriStar, a company that has sales management solutions, and owns 750+ domains.
6. TimeShares.ca sold for $11,800
An under construction lander is live, and per Whois, it’s owned by an entity named “CANADIAN TIMESHARES LTD”.
7. GreenVita.com sold for $11,300
This appears to be a restaurant in Barcelona that is striving to become more than just a restaurant. They say in part, “WE ARE NOT A RESTAURANT. Or a school, a group, a philosophy, or a religion. We want to do our part to contribute to a healthier, more balanced and natural diet.”

8. 4U.de sold for $11,187
This was an upgrade from Coupons4u.de, which is where their acquisition is redirected. Per Google Translate, “We are one of the first gift portals in Germany since 2004. At coupons4u.de we only accept voucher codes tested by our editorial team. In addition, you will find serious profit games with no data trafficking and exciting free actions of well-known brands.“

9. EventIndustryNews.com sold for $9,000
This domain was an upgrade from the .co.uk, and you’ll find exactly what you would expect at the site. “Event Industry News (EIN) is an online event magazine that provides the latest news to the event industry.” It’s the traffic leader for the week, with its Alexa rank near 700,000.

10. Equals.net sold for $8,800
The folks behind the developed Equals.org picked up the .net, and they also control the .com. “EQUALS is a ground-breaking global initiative delivered by a committed partnership of corporate leaders, governments, non-profit organizations, communities and individuals around the world working together to bridge the digital gender divide – by bringing women to tech, and tech to women.”

The post Update on Top 10 Sales from a Year Ago: Wave.com, Santa.org, Equals.net, More appeared first on DSAD.

The post Update on Top 10 Sales from a Year Ago: Wave.com, Santa.org, Equals.net, More appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

It’s All About Carbs: Low-Fat Diet Could Kill You… How Kahoot! Quickly Hit One Billion Players

The Frager Factor The Frager Factor: Anyone come to mind— The Fascinating Reason Why Liars Keep On Lying; P&G fought online advertising, and online advertising won; Four Tips For Improving Your E-Commerce Conversion Optimization; For Many Marketers, Email Is Still King; Google’s refunds point to two of the biggest problems in ad tech; What's The Difference Between Content Marketing And SEO? 3 Reasons Content Is Still King in the

The post It’s All About Carbs: Low-Fat Diet Could Kill You… How Kahoot! Quickly Hit One Billion Players appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

AUCTION RECAP OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

Domain Shane Domain Shane: A comprehensive look at the final auction prices, closeouts and more from the auction list posted on September 1, 2017. 
If there is an asterisk (*) next to a price, it means that the name was at auction from a private seller (rather than an expiring name) and may have had a reserve.  I’m only showing where the price was when the auction ended, but the name may not have sold if a reserve was in place.
Save Money With Daddy Bulk Domain Registration
DropCatch and Sedo Names at Auction
MRFW.com   W for worldwide
$1,052
BitcoinCash.gr    I admit, I don’t know what country .gr is but I sure know what Bitcoin Cash is.   Has 14 bids and closes today
$420
OQ7.com     I don’t like zero and 0 names but it still is a CCC.com and that keeps it liquid and investable IMO.  5 Bids
$391
Emoticon.net  Emoticon is good enough to have some value on the .net   A few bidders agree
$850
LaicHang.com  Yup, just like you thought.  Four figure name
$1,250
WeddingDesigner.com   Under $500 would be a good buy IMO
$1,069
 
Namejet

Top 10 Namejet sales for yesterday as listed on Namebio.
gaje.com $2,700
o89.com $2,400
oceanavenue.com $2,252
8bm.com $1,811
hhfh.com $1,118
888960.com $1,109
59275.com $1,100
bskz.com $1,018
cmlw.com $1,018
vipcruise.com $1,009

The post AUCTION RECAP OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 appeared first on DSAD.

The post AUCTION RECAP OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Post-UDRP, ACPA Actions Challenging Awards

CircleID CircleID: The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not an exclusive remedy for cybersquatting, but it is by far the preferred forum. Direct actions in courts of competent jurisdiction, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the U.S. are minimal in comparison, and it is rare for respondents to remove disputes to a court of competent jurisdiction before a UDRP decision (paragraph 4(k) of the Policy). Less rare (but not copious) are post-UDRP challenges under the ACPA. I mentioned in a recent essay there are several post-UDRP actions currently pending on U.S. district court dockets for relief under the ACPA. See also discussion of earlier cases in Statutory Remedies for UDRP Grievants. When cases go the distance in federal court, it's a rare opportunity to get some feedback from the Bench on issues of bad faith and lawful registrations of domain names — Bench, because these disputes are typically resolved on summary judgment, or bench trial.

Direct complaints to federal court are generally filed for speed in obtaining preliminary injunctions (for fraudulent transfers, for example, or shutting down multiple websites offering counterfeit goods). A case currently in the news is Lemond v. Stinchfield, Civil No. 17‑2071 (D. Minn., August 14, 2017) in which the court granted a preliminary injunction ordering removal of all content from websites, directing defendant to cease using the (33) domain names, selling or assigning the domain names, and enjoining further registrations incorporating plaintiff's mark). Where these direct-ACPA disputes involve legal issues outside the scope of the UDRP, they are not suitable for summary adjudication.

However, for post-UDRP challenges, there have been a number of decisions that have reinforced principles developed under UDRP jurisprudence and some particular to trademark law. The challenges have come from top and bottom of the caption. These challenges and those pending are not appeals but de novo reviews of the facts. Parties should be prepared for a totally different experience in ACPA actions (a warning particularly to respondents who are less likely to be represented by counsel but also to mark owners as a caution against overreaching rights that the losing party is exposed to statutory damages "not more than $100,000," 15 U.S.C. §1117(d) and (e)) and attorney's fees, §1114(2)(D)(iv). Investor, losing party in an important decision affirmed by the 9th Circuit paid a heavy price for challenging the UDRP decision, Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009) and 636 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 2011).

Two recent cases are worth noting (both decided in favor of mark owners, one as plaintiff and the other as defendant), Bulbs 4 E. Side, Inc. v. Ricks, (S.D. Tex., Houston Div. July 18, 2017 (Complainant as grievant from Bulbs 4 East Side Inc., d/b/a Just Bulbs v. Fundacion Private Whois/ Gregory Ricks, D2013‑1779 (WIPO January 13, 2014)); Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A, 15‑cv‑62344 (S.D. Fla., August 10, 2017) (Respondent as grievant from VIA VAREJO S/A, v. Domain Admin, D2015‑1304 (WIPO October 17, 2015) (<casasbahia.com>)).

A third dispute recently ended with a Consent Judgment (ostensibly in favor of domain name investor); but the Judgment doesn't tell us very much so I'll simply identify it: VIRTUALPOINT, INC., dba Captive Media, v. POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, dba PCI GAMING AUTHORITY, SACV-15-02025 (DCCD, CA July 10, 2017), "The Decision in the underlying UDRP before the NAF [now known as The Forum] ordering Plaintiff VPI to transfer ownership of the Domain Name to PBCI is reversed on the grounds that VPI has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, registered and used the Domain in good faith, and is the rightful owner of the Domain Name. It is therefore Ordered that the [UDRP] decision be withdrawn in full (Poarch Band of Creek Indians dba PCI Gaming Authority v. Tech Admin, Virtual Point, FA1509001639763 (Forum November 13, 2015) (<wind creek.com>)).

The Ricks dispute actually began in 2003 with Superiority, Inc. d/b/a Just Bulbs v. none/Mother boards.com, D2003‑0491 (WIPO October 9, 2003) for <justbulbs.com> but for a combination of reasons the Panel dismissed the complaint: "the phrase is a relatively short (only two words) and simple (comprised of common English words) descriptive phrase that could be used equally well to indicate flower bulbs or light bulbs." Further (and resulting in a finding that there was no bad faith registration, albeit transient bad faith use):

Since Respondent has represented it will not resume advertising light bulbs, Respondent's use of the domain name as a portal for customers interested in flower bulbs is sufficient to demonstrate a legitimate interest and a bona fide use of the domain name.

The dispute returned to the UDRP in 2013 because representations notwithstanding Ricks resumed advertising light bulbs, but now Complainant was faced with having to surmount two different arguments, namely res judicata (Ricks was the principal of the earlier Respondent) and more potently that proof of bad faith use subsequent to lawful registration is not sufficient to prove abusive registration under UDRP jurisprudence. The Panel accepted Respondent's argument and denied the complaint with the following explanation (in keeping with the consensus among Panelists that subsequent bad faith use after lawful registration is not actionable):

There is no new evidence in the record of the present case that Respondent=s state of knowledge of Complainant's mark back in 2003 was different from how the Superiority panel considered it. In other words, there is no more reason now than there was in 2003 to conclude that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. (The fact that, since 2003, Respondent has emerged as a serial cybersquatter does not, in this Panel's view, upset the conclusion under the particular circumstances of this case that Respondent's initial registration of the Domain Name — the second‑level domain of which ["just bulbs"] is a fairly descriptive term — was not in bad faith.)

In contrast, the ACPA provides a different route for determining abusive registration. For one, the ACPA is a disjunctive model as opposed to the UDRP which requires proof of conjunctive bad faith. Mark owners can succeed in an ACPA action by proving bad faith use (assuming the mark was distinctive before the registration of the domain name, which was the case in Bulbs). Proof of bad faith use alone is sufficient to establish abusive registration. There were also other implicating factors:

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has conclusively demonstrated that Defendant acted in bad faith under the ACPA. An overwhelming majority of the factors suggest bad faith, and the Court is particularly convinced that Defendant's egregious pattern of cybersquatting shows bad faith. The prior WIPO decisions are also relevant to the "totality of the circumstances," because they clearly demonstrate that Defendant knew or should have known that his conduct was illegal, but continued to use his website to advertise lightbulbs.

In a Final Judgment entered August 3, 2017 the Court awarded plaintiff mark owner $50,000 statutory damages and $73,834.10 attorney's fees.

In Direct Niche the court is yet to rule on damages and attorney's fees, but its ruling on the summary judgment motion leaves little doubt it will be forthcoming against defendant domain name holder. The UDRP Panel

was able to personally assess that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which contains a pay per click (PPC) website. The Internet user is automatically redirected to a webpage where you find several categories of sponsored links. When clicking on any subcategory the Internet user faces a list of sponsored links of products and services which compete with the Complainant's goods sold on the Complainant's website and retail stores.

The district court judge looked even further into the circumstances, questioning plaintiff's (formerly Respondent's credibility) at bench trial, the court simply didn't believe plaintiff's narrative):

[Pg 6] Despite this marked increase in price [over the singular version of the phrase for the domain name], [Plaintiff, previously Respondent in the UDRP proceeding] did not perform any trademark or Google searches for the plural casas bahia, instead choosing to rely on his recollection of the searches he had performed for the singular casa bahia three years earlier.

And

[Pg 16] Direct Niche fails to plausibly explain why it publicly listed its name and St. Louis Park, Minnesota, address as the registrant name and address for its other domains, yet hid its identity behind two layers of privacy protection when the time came to register the Casas Bahia DomainCthat is, until this lawsuit was filed, at which time it changed the registrant to its own name and address.

Earlier cases in which district courts had personal jurisdiction, the courts awarded damages and attorney's fees to prevailing parties. Other cases in the pipeline include Corporacion Empresarial Altra S.L. v. Development Services, Telepathy, Inc., D2017-0178 (WIPO May 15, 2017) (<airzone.com>. Complainant sanctioned for RDNH; Respondent has commenced an ACPA (as the prevailing party). It presents a first-time issue, namely whether a losing complainant who is sanctioned for reverse domain name hijacking is also exposed to monetary damages under the ACPA for up to $100,000; it could open a flood-gate if the answer is "yes."
Written by Gerald M. Levine, Intellectual Property, Arbitrator/Mediator at Levine Samuel LLPFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Cybersquatting, Domain Names, UDRP

The post Post-UDRP, ACPA Actions Challenging Awards appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Instagram registers Doxagram domain names in wake of data breach

Domain Name Wire Domain Name Wire: Company’s domain registrations are probably futile. This week news broke that hackers stole account information on perhaps six million Instagram users and are selling the data. A group of hackers being called DoxAGram is responsible for the breach. In the wake of the breach and disclosure, Instagram is registering lots of domain names with DoxAGram […]
The post Instagram registers Doxagram domain names in wake of data breach appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views.

The post Instagram registers Doxagram domain names in wake of data breach appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading