Hacktoberfest is here – get involved and give back to open source

I Want My Name I Want My Name: Open source gives us so much! It’s quite unbelievable how many of the sites, apps, software, and hardware we love rely, at some level, on open source.
Naturally, we’re big proponents of it, and like most other tech companies, we’ve also benefited hugely from it. And sure, we contribute where we can, but there’s always that nagging feeling we could do more.
There are many of us in a similar position. We know we should give back more, and we absolutely want to – but life, man. You know, it’s busy, right?!

Well, for the month of October, you are invited, welcomed, and encouraged to contribute however you can as part of GitHub’s Hacktoberfest (here’s a list of all the GitHub issues that have used the label #hacktoberfest to be included in the campaign). Plus, if you submit four pull requests this month, you can score a sweet shirt designed for this event. To get in on that sweet swag, be sure to register before you get started.
If you’ve never contributed to open source before, this is a great time to start. Increasingly, projects will label issues for beginners – check out FreeCodeCamp’s article on contributing to your first project or bug.
Also, don’t feel confined by the #hactoberfest tag, you can always contribute to any open source project out there. Perhaps you are already part of a project – you could finally ship that code you’ve been meaning to. Or, if you have some free time, just help out somewhere else where you will be equally appreciated – we all need the help!
Happy hacking!

The post Hacktoberfest is here – get involved and give back to open source appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

.US Town Hall – Key points and how Neustar totally ignored my question

OnlineDomain.com OnlineDomain.com: Neustar held the .US domain names town hall last week. They mostly talked about how they do all these “great” marketing efforts they do and people on forums and blogs complained about that. But a few interesting things came out. BTW the Neustar marketing efforts are non-existent and everyone agrees on that as I have …
The post .US Town Hall – Key points and how Neustar totally ignored my question appeared first on OnlineDomain.com.

Related Articles:
Neustar has destroyed the .BIZ and .US domain name whois service
.US to host its annual town hall meeting
Join the .US town hall meeting and help shape the future of the .US extension

The post .US Town Hall – Key points and how Neustar totally ignored my question appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Trademark Rights Paramount to Contract Rights for Domain Names

CircleID CircleID: UDRP decisions come down from providers (principally from WIPO and the Forum) at the rate of 7 to 10 a day. Complainants mostly prevail; this is because in 90% of the cases (more or less that percentage) respondents have no plausible defense and generally don't bother appearing, although default alone is not conclusive of cybersquatting; there must be evidence of infringement. When complainants do not prevail, it is not because they lack rights; it is because, in the balancing of rights, complainants either do not have sufficient evidence of bad faith, or respondents have persuasive arguments that their registrations are lawful.

The reason for stressing that trademark rights are paramount to contracts for domain names rests on the value societies attach to identifiers of source and the universal policy of governments to protect the integrity of marks from being used opportunistically for gain at the expense of mark owners and the public. This does not diminish contract rights lawfully acquired, although the challenge of rights demands proof.

In challenging registrants complainants start with two advantages, namely 1) the UDRP is a rights protection mechanism designed for them; and 2) they own statutorily protected marks while registrants have only contractual rights to their domain names. The legal challenge can be mounted at any time, regardless the length of holding, and when challenged registrants have no choice (other than defaulting or removing the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction) except to protect their interests in a UDRP proceeding. (Removal to a court of competent jurisdiction is extremely rare, incidentally although losing registrants have prevailed in actions under the ACPA).

The 90% forfeiture rate mostly involves domain names incorporating marks distinctive--not just, or not only because they are necessarily well-known or famous, but because knowledge of them (directly or inferentially) cannot plausibly be denied. However, as marks descend on the classification scale, complainants' proof of cybersquatting must correspondingly be of higher quality. The reverse is true as marks ascend on the classification scale, there is a correspondingly higher demand on respondents to explain their registrations.

It may come as a hard lesson for respondents insistent of their contract rights that they may be inferior to complainants' rights if they cannot convincingly explain their lexical and numeric choices or if their explanations lack credibility. The issue comes into focus in two recent cases. There are (one would think) rules for acquiring domain names. One rule is that the acquirer should undertake due diligence before making a purchase, or risk losing both the domain name and the purchase price.

In National Cable Satellite Corporation, d/b/a C-SPAN vs. Michael Mann / Omar Rivero, FA1707001741966 (Forum September 20, 2017) the real party in interest (Rivero) acquired from a well-known investor (Mann) for $75,000. Mann acquired the domain name many years earlier, although the acquisition postdated Complainant's WASHINGTON JOURNAL mark by many years (registration, 1997). (There is no indication in the record of any due diligence before Rivero purchased the domain name, and if not it violates the first rule of acquiring property).

Respondent contended that,

Complainant does not have the exclusive rights in the terms WASHINGTON JOURNAL, and there are several other registrations that contain or bear the precise terms "WASHINGTON" and "JOURNAL." [Respondent gave as an example WASHINGTON BUSINESS JOURNAL].

And

It is clear that the Complainant does not have the exclusive rights in the terms WASHINGTON JOURNAL across a broad range of goods and/or services. Without the exclusive rights in the terms WASHINGTON JOURNAL, it is impossible for Complainant to allege that the "USPTO alone sufficiently establishes the NSCS's rights to the name pursuant to Policy 4(a)(1)." Rivero also contends "...it is obvious that the USPTO did not intend for Complainant to have exclusive rights in the terms WASHINGTON JOURNAL or the [Domain Name] incorporating those terms.

The Panel (unanimous) was not persuaded:

[Respondent] is a Cornell University graduate and a Founder and Editor-In-Chief of an organization called Occupy Democrats. Moreover, he states that he acquired the Domain Name specifically to launch a website to disseminate political news. Given Rivero's background and the political news hosted on his website, the Panel finds that Rivero, on the evidence presented, was aware of Complainant's WASHINGTON JOURNAL mark and that he was aware that confusion between his website and Complainant's registered mark would help jump-start the launch of his website.

Even if Rivero neglected to perform due diligence (a case of not paying attention to Complainant's statutory rights!) given the "length and prominence of Complainant's use" use in commerce it was simply "not credible" that he

was unfamiliar with Complainant's mark, especially given that he is using the Domain Name for political news. Rivero does not deny knowledge of the mark, but instead, merely notes that Complainant has not proven his knowledge. Here, given these facts, that knowledge is easy to infer.

(Although not quite the same facts because the domain names were built on generic terms, Respondent in a 2016 case paid $175,000 dollars and forfeited <halifaxcarfinance.com>, <halifax.com> and <halifaxliving.org>, Bank of Scotland Plc v. Shelley Roberts, Diversity Network, D2015-2310 (WIPO February 15, 2016) because it violated another cardinal rule, namely offering the domain names to Complainant. I'll return to this case in a moment).

Claiming to be harassed or bullied by brand owners into giving up domain names incorporating their marks is entertaining but a not good defense, any more than offering to settle a proceeding in exchange for payment. In PayPal, Inc. v. David Weiss / Paybyweb, Inc., FA1707001740061 (Forum August 17, 2017) (<paypals.com>) the Respondent stated

[it] only redirected the website to a gripe site after it was harassed by Complainant and believed that the diversion was necessary to prevent Complainant from taking the disputed domain name.

But, the Panel was not impressed: "More importantly, one does not establish good faith merely by changing the content of a site in an attempt to make it non-infringing, especially after the receipt of a cease and desist letter." Respondent also breached the same cardinal rule of offering to sell the domain name to Complainant.

In Airbnb, Inc. v. Norman King / Target Marketing Group, FA1707001738345 (Forum July 27, 2017) involving <air-bnb.com> Respondent was indignant at being called out as a cybersquatter and made no bones that the domain name was "available for sale at $25,000" (and had in fact been offered to Complainant). Moreover,

This domain name was offered to both Brian Chesky and airbnb.com several months ago, along with Jonathan Mildenhall and Joe Gibbia and each one declined the offer, and they further indicated in their response that they were not interested in the domain name. They said it was not important to airbnb.com and they were cool with that decision. I thought they must be crazy? Now suddenly you are interested… Or maybe you simply intend to Bully us into submission with your lawyers, your huge might and your 30 Billion Dollar Valuation. (Emphasis added).

Moreover,

If you continue to Bully me I promise you that I will attach copies of all the emails between myself and Brian Chesky and Jonathan Mildenhall and I will publish this complaint on all Public Forums on the Internet. I will publicly post my response, and all documents filed in this dispute will be published on ALL public forums. I am an SEO expert so I expect to rank these articles on Page One of Google. So, To make a long story short… If you wanted this domain you should have bought it 10 years ago.

Length of time could be a factor but not for well-known marks, and not even for those marks composed of generic terms (the "Halifax" domain names noted above) where respondents are found to have offered the domain names to complainants in violation of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, although it is also true as the Panel in Bank of Scotland noted

had the evidence shown that this disputed domain name was acquired and used in connection with such a purpose [for its geographical associations with City of Halifax] then this would have been sufficient to demonstrate the Respondent's rights and legitimate interests under the Policy.

Trademarks are not paramount when the strings of lexical characters can be purposed for non-infringing products or services. Their rights extend only so far. Notwithstanding respondent exclamations, they are sometimes right. One is reminded, for example, of cases respondents lose in the UDRP proceedings against Complainants with weak marks but prevail in ACPA actions. The mark in Blue Ridge Fiberboard, Inc. v. Domain Administrator/Domain Asset Holdings, LLC., FA1602001661150 (Forum March 29, 2016) is SOUND STOP; the mark in Camilla Australia Pty Ltd v. Domain Admin, Mrs Jello, LLC., D2015-1593 (WIPO November 30, 2015) is CAMILLA. These cases are not alone in challenging UDRP awards. In both Blue Ridge and Camilla Complainants (defendants in the subsequent actions) settled without gaining control of the domain names.

I think no one would disagree that there is a marked difference between PAYPAL and SOUND STOP even though both are composed of dictionary words. (But what marks are NOT composed of dictionary words? Few I think are totally made-up). The only plausible defense to claims for brand infringement is either active use of the word or phrase for its ordinary or semantic meaning, or non use but offering a credible explanation for acquiring the domain name for its ordinary meaning and plausible non mark value.
Written by Gerald M. Levine, Intellectual Property, Arbitrator/Mediator at Levine Samuel LLPFollow CircleID on TwitterMore under: Domain Names, Intellectual Property, Law, UDRP

The post Trademark Rights Paramount to Contract Rights for Domain Names appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

Escrow.com closes loophole displaying other party’s name

Escrow.com moved quickly, patching a loophole that would allow account holders to find out a party’s name, without first agreeing to an escrow transaction. How did that work? During the transaction creation process, the initiator could enter the other party’s email address, which would also display their full name, if they had entered into an […]

Copyright DomainGang

Continue reading

GoDaddy gets patent for “Suggesting domain names based on recognized user patterns”

Domain Name Wire Domain Name Wire: GoDaddy adds to patent arsenal with another domain search patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent number 9,787,634 to GoDaddy today for Suggesting domain names based on recognized user patterns. The patent describes ways to make domain name suggestions better. According to the patent: Many current-available solutions to finding the ideal available domain […]
The post GoDaddy gets patent for “Suggesting domain names based on recognized user patterns” appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff.

The post GoDaddy gets patent for “Suggesting domain names based on recognized user patterns” appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.

Continue reading

.Boston domain names enter general availability today

Standard registration fees are near .com prices. The days of many notable top level domain names entering general availability are long gone, but there’s a noteworthy launch today: .Boston. Domain names ending in .boston will be available today starting at 16:00 UTC, which is noon EDT. Standard prices are fairly low; GoDaddy is charging $11.99 […]

The post .Boston domain names enter general availability today appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff.

Continue reading