|
|
Your Source for Domain Dispute
News and Information |
April 28, 2008,
Vol. 9 No. 04 |
Welcome to Domain News, a complimentary
news service of the National Arbitration Forum. The National
Arbitration Forum is one of the
world's largest neutral administrators of arbitration services and one
of three ICANN-approved providers. We invite you to visit our website
at
www.adrforum.com.
The
National
Arbitration Forum
invites you to
subscribe directly to Domain News. If you have been forwarded this
issue, and wish to receive a clean copy with active links, please send your
contact information and e-mail address to
domain-news@adrforum.com.
Type "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject header, and you will be added to our growing
list of recipients.
In
This Issue
Julie Menin v. Peter Gleason, LLC
Simple Searching: Direct Navigation Creates Advertising Opportunities
Top Hollywood Movie and Music Production Houses Attack “The Pirate Bay” for
File-Sharing
In Response to the Changing Face of the Internet, VeriSign Raises Domain
Name Fees Again
Recent
Decisions
Tahiti One Travel v. A.M.
Complainant, Tahiti One Travel, brought a UDRP claim
against Respondent, A.M. for the <easytahiti.org> domain name. Complainant
had a trademark registration for the EASYTAHITI.COM mark. The Panel found
substituting one gTLD for another gTLD in Complainant’s mark does not
sufficiently differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name from
Complainant’s EASYTAHITI.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In
addition, the Panel found Respondent did not have rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because
Respondent presumably received click-through fees to redirect Internet users
to commercial websites unrelated to Complainant’s business. Additionally,
the Panel found Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constituted
disruption and was evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Tahiti One Travel v. A.M., FA 1152430 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 4,
2008).
Menin v. Gleason
Complainant, Menin, brought a UDRP claim against
Respondent, Gleason, for multiple domain names incorporating Complainant’s
JULIE MENIN mark. Respondent was a potential political opponent of
Complainant’s. Respondent used the disputed domain names to operate parked
web pages unrelated to Complainant. Respondent alleges he initially
purchased the domain names with the intent to provide information for the
public dialogue on Complainant. The Panel found Respondent’s conduct was an
effort to deprive her of the use of her name and not a legitimate effort to
engage in a political debate. Thus, the Panel found Respondent did not have
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Therefore, the
Panel transferred the disputed domain names from Respondent to Complainant.
Menin v. Gleason, FA 1142614 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 2, 2008).
DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Tabish Umar Siddiqui
Complainant, DatingDirect.com Ltd., a UK provider of
online dating services brought this UDRP claim against Respondent for
ownership of the <directonlinedating.com> domain name. The Panel
concluded that the disputed domain name was not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it inverted
the words in the mark, and added a third term between the two words. The
Panel also found that Complainant only claimed exclusive rights to the two
terms in the ordered combination as “Dating Direct,” and that Complainant
did not have exclusive rights to the words “direct” or “dating” alone.
Therefore, the Panel denied transfer of the disputed domain name to
Complainant.
DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Tabish Umar Siddiqui, FA 1139945 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 11, 2008).
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Darush
Complainant, SkinMedica, Inc., brought this UDRP claim
against Respondent for ownership of the <skinmedicatns.com> domain
name. Complainant is a specialty pharmacy company involved in developing,
acquiring, and commercializing dermatological products. Respondent asserts
that it had been authorized by Complainant to sell Complainant’s products
since 2005. Complainant, however, maintained that it never licensed or
authorized Complainant to use the SKINMECIA or TNS marks. The website that
resolved from the disputed domain name included links to competing
third-party websites. The Panel concluded that Respondent’s use did not
demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) but
rather evidenced bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel then ordered
the transfer for the disputed domain name to Complainant. SkinMedica,
Inc. v. Darush, FA 1115189 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 20, 2008
Robert Bosch Corp. v. Atkin
Complainant, Robert Bosch Corp. brought this UDRP claim
against Respondent, disputing Respondent’s use of the <hydoboost.com>
domain name. Complainant markets its vehicle breaking systems under the
HYDRO-BOOST mark. Respondent argued the term “Hydroboost” was a generic for
any power assist braking system that relies on hydraulic pressure. The
Panel found that Respondent failed to prove the mark was generic and then
concluded that Respondent was using the disputed domain name to operate a
website where products competing with Complainant’s products were sold. The
Panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant based
on Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) and registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Robert Bosch Corp. v. Atkin, FA 1139093 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 17,
2008).
E-PRACTICE
Simple Searching:
Direct Navigation Creates Advertising Opportunities
The concept of direct navigation has existed as long as
the Internet has reached consumers’ homes, but it is quickly becoming an
intricate part of a novel advertising approach.
Direct navigation refers to the concept of bypassing online search
engines and simply utilizing the website address bar to reach a desired
Internet destination. So-called “type-in
traffic” is one form of direct navigation, wherein Internet users type a
desired category or search term in the address bar and add a generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com.” For example,
Internet users seeking candy may enter “candy.com” in their address bar
and wind up at a website that features lucrative pay-per-click
advertisements. While previous reports found that only 17% of Internet
users chose this method, one
recent survey noted that almost 64% of Internet users are using direct
navigation in their Internet browsing.
Investors seek to
capitalize on the use of direct navigation by registering generic domain
names that match Internet users’ direct navigation searches. This industry
likely started back in 2004, when Marchex
paid over $164 million for 100,000 generic domain names. Other
companies then emulated the approach.
NameMedia, a commercial website owner, raised $120 million in financing
in order to develop a portfolio of over 725,000 websites. Kelly Conlin,
NameMedia’s chief executive,
noted that “what [NameMedia] wanted to do, quietly, is amass the largest
real estate position on the Internet, which we feel we have.”
But is this venture profitable? Mr. Conlin
admits that direct navigation “is seldom fruitful for users…[a]n obscure
Web address may have four or so visitors a month, and perhaps half will
click on an ad. But if you have hundreds of thousands of those, it adds
up." Others
have criticized the approach regardless of volume, citing that the
expense of registering generic domain names and the time of building traffic
is not worth the effort, especially given the current profitability of
purchasing normal online advertisement space.
Potential registrants should be cautioned, however, to
avoid domain names that would incorporate identical or confusingly similar
forms of trademarks held by third-parties. By conducting a search on the
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
website, a potential registrant can determine whether a trademark
application or registration
would preclude purchasing a domain name incorporating that mark.
Correspondingly,
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) panels have found
that registrants
have rights and legitimate interests in their domain names when they are
solely comprised of generic words.
Finally, businesses seeking to take advantage of direct
navigation
must consider many factors when determining which domain names to
register, such as keyword relevance, traffic, and top-level domain choice.
Business owners may find it interesting to weigh the potential gains of
advertisement revenues from generic domain name acquisitions with the more
traditional approach of sale space purchases. In either regard, the use of
direct navigation does not appear to be waning, and should merit continued
attention from the marketing and advertising industries in the months and
years to come.
In
The News
Who is Watching you on the Web?
Siliconvalley.com, March 31, 2008: Legitimate websites
are tracking and compiling files about their customer’s activities in an
effort to better market to these customers. In addition, the Federal
Government is sifting through and analyzing Internet activity in the
interest of eliminating terrorism. In sum, it is not only hackers and
cyber-criminals that are getting their information looked at, analyzed, and
stored. Privacy advocates see this as a huge and ever-growing problem.
"When people use a browser, think of it as a two-way street. They look at
the world through it, and the world looks at them back," said Eben Moglen,
who studies and teaches about online privacy as a professor of law at
Columbia University in New York. If this bothers you, there are a few
things you can do to keep your Internet activities more private. First, you
can limit the type of information that your browser gives off about you by
both using privacy websites, which analyzes the information that you give
off while visiting websites and eliminating cookies which are used to track
what websites are visited. In addition, there are a number of different
anonymous surfing software packages that can be bought, however a number of
advocates believe that the ultimate answer to the privacy problem is having
the Government enter the equation and protect privacy instead of invading
it.
Link to Full Story
US oversight agreement with ICANN to expire in 2009
Infoworld.com, March 7, 2008: Since 1998, ICANN has had
a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
agreement was renewed in 2006 for an additional three years with it coming
to an end in September of 2009. Critics are concerned that if ICANN is no
longer under the control of the United States Department of Commerce the
lack of oversight will be harmful. They believe that having no oversight
may potentially be detrimental and have suggested the JPA should remain in
place to provide accountability. Other members of the worldwide community
that ICANN works with believe that U.S. oversight of the non-profit
organization is no longer necessary and that ICANN has met all of its
security and stability mandates. The future of ICANN is unclear at this
time. Ultimately, the decision rests in the hands of ICANN shareholders,
including new Australian President Paul Twomey.
Link to Full Story
The Soviet Union May Be Dead, But Its Top-Level
Domain Endures
SiliconValley.com, April 18, 2008: Due to an increasing
popularity, lowered price, and owners reluctant to switch to another domain,
the Soviet Union’s top-level domain “.su” continues to resist efforts to
extinguish it. Even though the Soviet Union hasn’t existed for well over a
decade, a combination of bloggers, Internet entrepreneurs, and die-hard
communists have kept the “.su” domain alive. For most of the 1990’s, the
domain name was not available to new registrants, but in 2001, it was made
available again to everyone everywhere, albeit at the heightened price of
$120 per year. Then, in January 2008, the body authorized to register the
domain name dropped its price to $25 per year in an attempt to boost the
domain name’s popularity, which definitely worked: registrations have risen
45% in just the three months since the price was dropped.
Link to Full Story
Top Hollywood Movie and
Music Production Houses Attack “The Pirate Bay” for File-Sharing
Radio Sweden, April 1, 2008: A group of Hollywood film and music
production houses have brought suit in Swedish District Court against the
owners of “The Pirate Bay” website for being accessories to copyright
infringement. The plaintiffs in the case include Warner
Bros. Entertainment Inc., MGM Pictures Inc., Colombia Pictures Industries
Inc., 20th Century Fox Films Co., Sony BMG, Universal and EMI. The
plaintiffs proposed damages total $2.56 million for defendant’s file-sharing
promotion. The defendants created “The Pirate Bay”
website
in 2004. Since then, they
have allowed 10 to 15 million users to share films,
music, computer games and other copyright-protected material. The have been
charged with both accessory and conspiracy to break Swedish copyright law,
and if convicted, they face a maximum of two years in prison.
Link to Full Story
In Response to the Changing
Face of the Internet, VeriSign Raises Domain Name Fees
Information Week, March 28, 2008: For the second time
since the company took control of the top-level domains ending in “.com” and
“.net” in 2006, VeriSign has raised the registration fee for the generic
top-level domains. According to company spokespersons, the registration fee
increases – to $6.86 from $6.42 for “.com,” and to $4.23 to $3.85 for
“.net” - are expected to take effect on October 1, 2009, and are in
accordance with VeriSign's agreement with ICANN. Verisign justified the fee
increases by noting that traffic volume continues to rise with the
popularity of wireless devices connected to the Internet, as well as newly
developed Internet services and technology. The company is also responding
to increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks by deploying new proprietary
security upgrades and monitoring tools to identify, track, and isolate
malicious Internet traffic.
Link to Full Story
Upcoming
events
| May 14-16, 2008 |
AIPLA Spring Meeting
Houston, TX, USA
|
| May 17-21, 2008 |
INTA Annual Meeting
Berlin, Germany
|
|
May
20-24, 2008 |
T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East
Orlando, FL |
Let
the National
Arbitration Forum know of
your upcoming events for listing in Domain News. Send event listing
information to:
domain-news@adrforum.com.
Please type "DOMAIN NEWS EVENTS" in the subject header.
back to top
|
