Month: December 2010

You Can’t Kiss a Frog and Expect a Prince(.com)

Posted on by slevy

I recently read through an interesting domain name dispute that highlights some important issues concerning appropriate use of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP was adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1999 as a means of addressing and resolving the problems necessarily caused by the inevitable conflict between trademarks and domain names.

In this case, Andrew Prince filed for UDRP arbitration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) over the domain prince.com. The complaint was filed against Sven Echternach. Prince has been the co-owner of the registered UK trademark PRINCE since 1997. He originally registered the domain prince.com in 1995 but contends that it was transferred to Moniker Privacy Services in 2010 without his knowledge or consent. He claimed that he only realized what had happened after he received a letter demanding he pay commission on the sale of the domain, based on an alleged exclusive brokerage agreement between him and Moniker.

In response, Echternach alleged that he purchased the domain by fair and legal means through an escrow service after it had been offered at public auction and failed to sell. He paid $235,000 for the domain. The previous registrar contended that it received an e-mail request from Prince to transfer the domain, which it did after verifying Prince’s password with him in order to ensure that Prince had indeed authorized the sale.

The Panel denied Prince’s complaint on the basis that the case does not fall under the scope of the UDRP. The Policy was designed as a means for trademark owners to recover cybersquatted domains through legal arbitration, in the event that the registration of those domain names infringes on their trademark. Descriptions and explanations of the UDRP are provided on the WIPO website, so it is slightly baffling to come up with an explanation as to why Prince would attempt to use the UDRP in this way.

Prince’s stated reason for filing his complaint was to recover stolen property. Even if his argument was valid, the Panel could not overlook the fact that the Policy was not created as a means of resolving accusations of domain name theft. The Panel found, therefore, that the dispute would be better resolved by other legal means and had no choice but to dismiss Prince’s complaint. It is an interesting look at the purpose of the UDRP and when it is and is not appropriate to use it as a means of acquiring a domain. Had Echternach been using the domain to infringe somehow on Prince’s registered trademark, there might have been the possibility for a legitimate UDRP claim, but that definitely does not seem to have been the case.

Could New TLDs Really Catch On?

Posted on by jbourne

As many of us are preparing our comments on ICANN’s latest new TLD guidebook, many companies are also trying to determine if they will actually apply for a new TLD if they arrive as scheduled by ICANN in May of 2011.

Facebook

Even though many of the previously launched “new TLDs” did not bring about a meaningful shift in online consumer behavior, there is a shared concern among digital executives over not knowing what will happen with this launch, or what the appropriate action will be.

Imagine if Facebook is one company that applies for a new TLD in the first round.  It might make sense; Facebook has had its fair share of username and security issues and Facebook users spend more time on facebook.com than any other site.  The possibility of creating .FACEBOOK domains for each user, such as PhilLodico.facebook, might be interesting to Facebook and it would likely be valued by users as well.

Facebook alone has over 500 million users.  That would translate to 500 million new domain names; tripling the number of domain names in existence overnight.

Now imagine adding in other Internet powerhouses like Google, Microsoft and Apple, and big brands like Coca-Cola, Disney and others.  These companies have enormous reach in terms of customer touch points, not to mention budgets with which – if they wanted to – they could try to shift consumer behavior.

Between Facebook’s grassroots consumer behavior shift and a possible direct marketing program by brand leaders, there is no question; there is a chance that new TLDs will catch on.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could sit on the side and wait and see what other companies do?  To see if Facebook does this?  To see if 500 million new domain names are registered and to see what consumers begin to do.  It would.  But ICANN isn’t necessarily going to allow that to happen.

The biggest risk that new TLDs (if approved) present is that we only know that there will be one window that opens.  The last time a window opened was seven years ago. What if ICANN gets overwhelmed with this launch?  What if it takes years to process the 500 applications that they are talking about possibly receiving?  What if ICANN is prevented from moving forward with another window because of abuse found in the space?  What if it is 3, 5, or 7 years until the next window opens?

What happens to the brand owners that decided to wait on the sideline if new TLDs begin to catch on?  Those that did apply will have the ultimate competitive advantage while those who didn’t will be sitting on the bench waiting for their chance to play catch up.

Basketball

While I believe there is still an opportunity to alter if and how new TLDs will be released, this risk of being sidelined is one we all need to take seriously.  And as ICANN has shown us, we need to start thinking about this soon.

Where Did WikiLeaks Go?

Posted on by jbourne

No doubt you’ve been hearing a lot about WikiLeaks lately, the site that has released hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents to the public. Splashed across the news around the world, WikiLeaks and its founder have been the subjects of much debate, concern, and even potential litigation. Now, there’s a new twist to the tale – the site might be losing its domain name.

BBC News reported today that EveryDNS.net, the service provider for WikiLeaks.org, has rescinded its DNS services for the site, claiming that the site has been attracting attacks that put the entire EveryDNS.net infrastructure (and the 500,000 domains it supports) at risk. This comes right on the heels of Amazon’s ending the agreement to host the WikiLeaks site due to a failure to adhere to the appropriate terms of service (essentially by not owning the rights to the classified content that is being posted).

So, what happens to a site after it loses its domain name? The domain may have been taken down, but the IP address (the raw code for the location of this information online) still allows the content to remain available. Today, WikiLeaks tweeted its IP address to followers, hoping that Internet users would still navigate to its content. Within the hour, WikiLeaks informed followers that the site had moved to a Swiss domain: WikiLeaks.ch. The site redirects to the same IP address, meaning that WikiLeaks’ entire original content is still present and accessible.

This whole kerfuffle should serve as a reminder about how essential domain names are to directing visitors to online content. However, it also educates us on how bad actors are able to cunningly maintain their content by manipulating the domain space. The Internet is a global entity and a maze of many jurisdictions. Thus, if there is a will, it seems that there is a way to keep content online.

It’s easy to see that Internet governance is incredibly complex.  Check back next week for a post about how these types of incidents are able to occur, pending legislation that is intended to create a remedy, and the role of ICANN in policing this space.