Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

“UDRP-proof” .feedback gTLD loses first UDRP

Kevin Murphy, September 26, 2016, Domain Registries

The first cybersquatting complaint against a .feedback domain name has resulted in a transfer, despite registry claims that the gTLD was “UDRP-proof”.

De Beers, the diamond merchant, won a UDRP case against the registrant of debeers.feedback earlier this month.

The registrant, who used a privacy service, registered the name back in January, when .feedback was in its unusual “Free Speech Partner Program” phase.

That took the place of an Early Access Program, but saw domains deeply discounted instead of premium-priced.

Buyers had to agree to point their domain to a registry-hosted social media platform and there was a $5,000 fee if they later decided to change name servers.

The registrant of debeers.feedback lost the UDRP largely because there wasn’t much actual feedback on the site until De Beers sent him a nastygram.

On March 24, the site only contained a single two-word post. Five more were added with apparently false earlier dates at a later time, the panelist found.

He wrote:

If the website were genuinely operating as a feedback forum, one would ordinarily expect the reviews to have appeared at or close to their respective dates. That they were not on the website on March 24 and did not appear until after the letter of demand was sent calls for explanation.

The panelist doesn’t mention it, but the reviews all seem to have been copied directly from Yelp!.

Basically, the registrant lost his domain for filling the site with bogosity rather than genuine free-speech griping.

It’s not a terribly surprising or worrying result, perhaps, but it does run counter to what Jay Westerdal, CEO of registry Top Level Spectrum, told us back in January.

“It is a great opportunity for domainers to register domains that will be UDRP proof,” he said at the time. “As free speech sites they are going to improve the world and let anyone read reviews on any subject.”

“I think they are UDRP proof,” he added back then, offering the services of his lawyers to registrants who found themselves served with UDRP complaints.

Today, Westerdal qualified his earlier remarks, telling DI: “I don’t think having a privacy service and also having a .feedback domain will hold up in the current UDRP system.”

Privacy services are discouraged by the registry, though explicitly permitted in its terms of service.

Westerdal said that because De Beers obtained the domain via UDRP, the company will not have to pay the $5,000 unlocking fee if it wants to point debeers.feedback’s name servers elsewhere.

UK cybersquatting cases flat, transfers down

The number of cybersquatting cases involving .uk domains was basically flat in 2015, while the number of domains that were transferred was down.

That’s according to Nominet’s wrap-up of last year’s complaints passing through its Dispute Resolution Service.

There were 728 DRS complaints in 2015, the registry said, compared to 726 in the year before.

The number of cases that resulted in the transfer of the domain to the complainant was down to 53%, from 55% in 2014.

That’s quite a bit lower than complainants’ success rates in UDRP. In 2015, more than 70% of UDRP cases resulted in a transfer.

Nominet reckons that the DRS saved £7.74 million ($notasmuchasitusedtobe) in legal fees last year, based on a “conservative” estimate of £15,000 per case, had the complaint gone to court instead.

More stats can be found here.

First registrar “breached” UDRP lock rule

Kevin Murphy, February 15, 2016, Domain Registrars

ICANN has charged a registrar with failing to abide by “cyberflight” rules for the first time.

Visesh Infotecnics did not lock down e-campaigner.com within two days of it being hit by a UDRP a couple of weeks ago, ICANN said in a compliance notice (pdf) on Thursday.

Visesh is based in India and does business as Signdomains.com. It has roughly 5,000 gTLD domains under management.

The transfer lock rule became ICANN consensus policy binding on all registrars last July, following four years of policy and implementation work.

It’s designed to prevent cybersquatters switching registrars when a UDRP lands in their inbox, a practice known as cyberflight.

The registrant of e-campaigner.com did not in fact change registrars, judging by Whois records.

The UDRP appears to have been filed in late January by a currently undisclosed entity. Signdomains put the domain on client-hold status February 8, according to Whois records.

This is the first time ICANN has publicly accused a registrar of failing to abide by the policy.

ICANN also says that the registrar does not display Whois data in the correct format on its web site, and that it owes some accreditation fees.

It has until March 3 to rectify these alleged breaches.

Instagram paid Chinese cyberquatter $100,000 for instagram.com, Facebook lawsuit reveals

Kevin Murphy, January 20, 2016, Domain Sales

Facebook has sued a Chinese cybersquatter for trying to renege on a five-year-old deal that saw it buy the domain instagram.com for $100,000.

The lawsuit, filed in California last week, claims that a family of known cybersquatters, based in Guangdong, is trying to have the purchase invalidated by a Chinese court.

The company, which acquired Instagram for $1 billion in 2012, wants the court to rule that the domain deal was legal, preventing the cybersquatters retaking control of the domain.

Photo-sharing app Instagram launched in October 2010 using the domain instagr.am.

At that time, instagram.com was owned by a US-based domain investor, but it was bought by Zhou Weiming about a month later.

Zhou, Facebook says, was the now-dead father of three of the people it is suing, and the husband of the fourth.

When Zhou purchased the domain, Instagram had become wildly popular, well on the way to hitting the million-user mark in December 2010.

Instagram had applied for the US trademark on its name in September 2010, less than a month before its launch.

The company made the decision to pay $100,000 for the domain in January 2011.

The Whois information for instagram.com changed from Zhou Weiming to Zhou Murong, apparently his daughter, around about the same time, though the registrant email address did not change.

The purchase was processed by Sedo, according to a copy of the deal filed as evidence (pdf).

Now, Murong’s mother and sisters are suing her and Instagram in China, claiming she did not have the authority to sell the domain, according to Facebook’s complaint.

Facebook claims the Chinese suit is a “sham” and that the whole Zhou family is acting in concert.

The company wants the California court to declare that the sale was valid, and that registrar MarkMonitor should not be forced to transfer the domain back to the Zhous.

Facebook in 2014 won a 22-domain UDRP case against Murong Zhou, related to typos of its Instagram trademark.

Read the full California complaint as a PDF here.

OpenTLD suspension stayed in unprecedented arbitration case

“Cybersquatting” registrar OpenTLD, part of the Freenom group, has had its accreditation un-suspended by ICANN while the two parties slug it out in arbitration.

Filed three weeks ago by OpenTLD, it’s the first complaint to head to arbitration about under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

ICANN suspended the registrar for 90 days in late June, claiming that it “engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking in or use of domain names identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark of a third party”.

But OpenTLD filed its arbitration claim day before the suspension was due to come in to effect, demanding a stay.

ICANN — voluntarily, it seems — put the suspension on hold pending the outcome of the case.

The suspension came about due to OpenTLD being found guilty of cybersquatting its competitors in two UDRP cases.

In both cases, the UDRP panel found that the company had cybersquatted the trademarks of rival registrars in an attempt to entice their resellers over to its platform.

But OpenTLD claims that ICANN rushed to suspend it without giving it a chance to put forward its side of the story and without informing it of the breach.

It further claims that the suspension is “disproportionate and unprecedented” and that the public interest would not be served for the suspension to be upheld.

This is not an Independent Review Process proceeding, so things are expected to move forward relatively quickly.

The arbitration panel expects to hear arguments by phone August 14 and rule one way or the other by August 24.

Read the OpenTLD complaint here.