Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Cybersquatting cases up because of .com

Kevin Murphy, March 23, 2018, Domain Services

The World Intellectual Property Organization handled cybersquatting cases covering almost a thousand extra domain names in 2017 over the previous year, but almost all of the growth came from complaints about .com names, according to the latest WIPO stats.

There were 3,074 UDRP cases filed with WIPO in 2017, up about 1.2% from the 3,036 cases heard in 2016, WIPO said in its annual roundup last week.

That’s slower growth than 2016, which saw a 10% increase in cases over the previous year.

But the number domains complained about in UDRP was up more sharply — 6,370 domains versus 5,374 in 2016.

WIPO graph

WIPO said that 12% of its 2017 cases covered domains registered in new gTLDs, down from 16% in 2016.

If you drill into its numbers, you see that 3,997 .com domains were complained about in 2017, up by 862 domains or 27% from the 3,135 seen in 2016.

.com accounted for 66% of UDRP’d domains in 2016 and 70% in 2017. The top four domains in WIPO’s table are all legacy gTLDs.

As usual when looking at stats for basically anything in the domain business in the last few years, the tumescent rise and meteoric fall of .xyz and .top have a lot to say about the numbers.

In 2016, they accounted for 321 and 153 of WIPO’s UDRP domains respectively, but they were down to 66 and 24 domains in 2017.

Instead, three Radix TLDs — .store, .site and .online — took the honors as the most complained-about new gTLDs, with 98, 79, and 74 domains respectively. Each of those three TLDs saw dozens more complained-about domains in 2017 than in 2016.

As usual, interpreting WIPO’s annual numbers requires caution for a number of reasons, among them: WIPO is not the only dispute resolution provider to handle UDRP cases, rises and falls in UDRP filings do not necessarily equate to rises and falls in cybersquatting, and comparisons between .com and new gTLDs do not take into account that new gTLDs also have the URS as an alternative dispute mechanism.

Former MarkMonitor execs join new brand protection registrar

Kevin Murphy, August 30, 2017, Domain Registrars

Two former MarkMonitor executives have teamed up with a Fairwinds co-founder to launch a new “next generation” brand protection registrar.

The new company is Brandsight. It was set up by CEO Phil Lodico, who left brand consultancy Fairwinds about a year ago, and was accredited by ICANN earlier this month.

The first two hires are Matt Serlin, who until a couple months ago was VP of client services at MarkMonitor, and Elisa Cooper, who joins after being VP of marketing at the intellectual property management company Lecorpio.

Cooper, who also worked for MarkMonitor in the same position until a couple of years ago, will be Brandsight’s head of marketing and policy. Serlin will head up operations and client services.

The two told me yesterday that Brandsight will attempt to differentiate itself from its alma maters through a combination of better technology, expertise and use of data.

Both have many years experience in the domain industry and ICANN and, one imagines, thick contacts books of potential clients.

The Brandsight site, which went live today, will feature improved workflow via a streamlined user interface, they said.

The company also hopes “better leverage big data to help companies make better decisions and streamline processes around domain management”, Cooper said.

“Legacy registrars haven’t been focused on building new technology, some for almost 10 years,” she said.

It looks like it’s going to be a boutique operation at first — I believe Lodico, Serlin and Cooper are the only three employees right now — but Cooper said the plan is to staff up over the remainder of the year in areas such as sales.

The idea is to be a company that is purely focused on corporate domain services as its core competency, as opposed to what they called the “legacy” larger registrars that have domains as just one service among many, Cooper and Serlin said.

Brandsight is based in New York state and funded by private investors.

.storage to have pricey second sunrise

The .storage gTLD is to get a second sunrise period after being acquired and repurposed by XYZ.com.

The registry will operate a “Trademark Landrush Period” for three weeks from November 7 as the first stage of .storage’s reboot as an open-to-all gTLD.

It’s not technically a “sunrise” period under ICANN rules — that phase was already completed under previous owner Extra Space Storage — nor is it restricted to trademark owners.

Basically anyone with the money will be able to buy a .storage domain during the period, but at a price.

One registrar is reporting that registrants will have to pay a $1,500 application fee on top of the soon-to-be-standard higher $699-per-year registration fee.

That’s considerably more than most new gTLDs charge during their regular sunrise phases.

There’s no need to own a matching trademark, so neither the registry, registrars or Trademark Clearinghouse have any trademark verification costs to bear.

But that also means anyone can pick up any generic, dictionary .storage domain they want without the need for paperwork. XYZ has previously said that all domains will be available at the same price, regardless of their previous “premium” status.

I can see some intellectual property interests being uneasy with how this relaunch is handling trademarks.

Under its former management, .storage was set to be tightly restricted to the physical and data storage industries, reducing the chance of cybersquatting, so some brands may have avoided the sunrise period.

After the relaunch — general availability starts December 5 — there will be no such restrictions. However, the high price of standard registrations is likely to deter all but the richest or dumbest cybersquatters.

XYZ.com acquired .storage for an undisclosed sum in May. There are currently about 800 domains in the .storage zone file.

Cybersquatting cases down in .uk

Kevin Murphy, June 23, 2017, Domain Policy

The number of cybersquatting complaints filed against .uk domains fell in 2016, according to data out this week from Nominet.

The .uk registry said that there were 703 complaints filed with its Dispute Resolution Service in the year, down from 728 in 2015.

However, the number of individual domains complained about appears to have increased, from 745 to 785. That’s partly due to registrants owning both .co.uk and .uk versions of the same name.

The number of cases that resulted in domains being transferred was 53%, the same as 2015, Nominet said.

The large majority of cases were filed by UK-based entities against UK-based registrants, the stats show.

GNSO faces off with governments over IGO cybersquatting

Kevin Murphy, January 27, 2017, Domain Policy

A defiant ICANN working group looking at cybersquatting rules for intergovernmental organizations is sticking to its guns in an ongoing face-off with the Governmental Advisory Committee.

In a report published for public comment this week, the GNSO working group recommended that IGOs should be given the right to use the UDRP and URS rights protection mechanisms, despite not being trademark owners.

But the recommendations conflict with the advice of the GAC, which wants ICANN to create entirely new mechanisms to deal with IGO rights.

I explored a lot of the back story of this argument in two posts a few months ago, which I will not rehash here.

The latest development is the publication of the proposed initial report of the GNSO IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Initial Report (pdf) for comment.

The WG was tasked with deciding whether changes should be made to UDRP and URS to help protect the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (international non-governmental organizations).

For INGOs, including the special cases of the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent, it decided no changes and no new mechanisms are required, concluding:

Many INGOs already have, and do, enforce their trademark rights. There is no perceivable barrier to other INGOs obtaining trademark rights in their names and/or acronyms and subsequently utilizing those rights as the basis for standing in the existing dispute resolution procedures (DRPs) created and offered by ICANN as a faster and lower cost alternative to litigation. For UDRP and URS purposes they have the same standing as any other private party.

The case with IGOs is different, because using UDRP and URS requires complainants to agree that the panel’s decisions can be challenge in court, and IGOs by their nature have a special legal status that allows them to claim jurisdictional immunity.

The WG recommends that these groups should be allowed access to UDRP and URS if they have protection under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, a longstanding international intellectual property treaty.

This rule would actually extend UDRP and URS to hundreds more IGO names and acronyms than the GAC has requested protection for, which is just a few hundred. WIPO’s 6ter database by contrast currently lists 925 names and 399 abbreviations.

To deal with the jurisdictional immunity problem, the WG report recommends that IGOs should be allowed to file cybersquatting complaints via a third-party “assignee, agent or licensee”.

It further recommends that if an IGO manages to persuade a court it has special jurisdictional immunity, having been sued by a UDRP-losing registrant, that the UDRP decision be either disregarded or sent back to the arbitration for another decision.

The recommendations with regard IGOs are in conflict with the recommendations (pdf) of the so-called “small group” — a collection of governments, IGOs, INGOs and ICANN directors that worked quietly and controversially in parallel with the WG to come up with alternative solutions.

The small group wants ICANN to create separate but “functionally equivalent” copies of the UDRP and URS to deal with cybersquatting on IGO name and acronyms.

These copied processes would be free for IGOs to use and, to account for the immunity issue, would not be founded in trademark law.

The WG recommendations are now open for public comment and are expected to be the subject of some debate at the March ICANN meeting in Copenhagen.