ICANN, the organization behind a major expansion of Internet address suffixes is offering full refunds to companies and organizations affected by a weeks-long delay in taking proposals.

Each application costs $185,000. Applicants had been allowed to withdraw bids for a partial refund. Now, they can get all of their money back as long as they pull their bids before a deadline that hasn’t yet been determined.

Last month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) abruptly shut down a system for letting companies and organizations propose new suffixes, after it discovered a software glitch that exposed some private data. The data in some cases offered clues about which companies were proposing what suffixes, which was supposed to be confidential.

Up to 1,000 domain name suffixes — the “.com” part of an Internet address — could be added each year in the most sweeping change to the domain name system since its creation in the 1980s.

The idea behind the expansion is to let Las Vegas hotels, casinos and other attractions congregate around “.Vegas,” or a company such as Canon Inc. draw customers to “cameras.Canon” or “printers.Canon.”

@AndrewHazen

According to SFGate, Hermes International SCA, maker of Birkin handbags and silk scarves, won a judgment that includes $100 million in damages against 34 websites that sold fake copies of its luxury goods.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York ruled the sites, which didn’t defend themselves in court, sold items that infringed upon at least nine Hermes products including Birkin and Kelly handbags, wallets, watches, belts and jewelry.

Cote said the websites, with names such as HermesBags- Outlet.net, HermesBirkin-Bags.org and HermesOutletStore.Com, were liable for federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement. They had also disregarded her previous temporary orders restraining them from selling counterfeit Hermes items, Cote said.

The court also ordered that any money held by PayPal Inc. to be given to Hermes and ordered Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and merchant account providers, as well as third-party processors and search engines including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp.’s Bing and Yahoo! Inc., to immediately stop providing services to the defendants or links to their sites.

The judge also directed social media companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to “de-index” and remove from any search pages links to the infringing defendants.

The order to the search engines and to the social networking companies to de-index the sites is an interesting one.

@AndrewHazen

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited has confirmed that it has applied to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to use the top level domain (TLD) of .deloitte.

The move will give the audit, tax, consulting and corporate finances firm a personalised online presence and comes ahead of the ICANN deadline.

Heather Hancock, managing director of global brand and communications at Deloitte, said that being a pioneering applicant sits alongside the company’s marketplace presence as a leader, innovator and impact maker.

“Additionally, the ‘.deloitte’ TLD will offer improved site accessibility and usability to Deloitte member firm clients, recruits, and others for an enhanced online experience – and lay a foundation for future online innovation,” she noted.

Larry Quinlan, Deloitte’s global chief information officer, said that the domain name application will help to “protect as well as enhance” the firm’s brand. “With the rollout of the TLD, Deloitte member firms will continue as industry leaders in providing clients and people with world-class IT security.”

Currently, just 22 TLDs exist, including the commonly-seen .com, .org and .net. However, businesses have been invited to register their brand name as a replacement. This could see domains such as .pepsi, .apple and .mcdonalds being used around the globe.

Deloitte is not the first company to announce that it has applied for a new TLD. Major players in their respective industries like Canon and Google have already come out and admitted that they have entered the bidding process.

ICANN was expected to reveal a list of companies which had applied, however, a technical problem with software last week meant that the deadline has now been put back.

@AndrewHazen

A dear attorney friend shared an article with me today that I found quite interesting given our recent success in selling products with daily deal sites….

Lawyers (of which I am one) who provide services to small businesses and individuals are particularly attracted to Internet applications that enable them to target potential clients before the client walks in the firm’s door.

Recently, the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics issued an opinion in which it explored whether lawyers can market their services by using a deal of the day or a group coupon website. The committee’s opinion generally supported the use of these websites, offering attorneys yet another avenue to attract clients and develop new business, albeit with caveats and requirement as to how attorneys must conduct themselves in connection with these offerings under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Based upon the facts, the committee opined as to whether an attorney may market legal services by participating in a “daily deal” or “group coupon” website. In its opinion, the committee pointed out that the use of a daily deal or group coupon website by a lawyer as a means of marketing legal services raises a number of issues:

• Whether the arrangement is an improper payment for a referral;

• Whether the amount received by a lawyer could, under certain circumstances, result in a prohibited excessive fee;

• Whether statements made by or on behalf of a lawyer are false or misleading or otherwise violate rules regarding lawyer advertising; and

• Whether the logistical arrangement of payment in advance for a legal service, before a lawyer has had the opportunity to check for conflicts or determine whether the lawyer is competent to perform the service and whether the client needs the service, constitutes a premature and improper formation of a lawyer-client relationship.

You can read the entire article here

@AndrewHazen

Domain Name Wire has reported today that Google has filed a UDRP against a 21 year old domain name: Gmai.com, which of course existed before Google created Gmail in 2004

Click here to read more about the UDRP that Google has filed

Looks like Ikea is successful again with another UDRP action….this time for wwwikea.com

From the decision:

“In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 9, 2004.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5 (a), the due date for the Response was November 29, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on December 1, 2004, the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default to the Respondent notifying him that he had failed to comply with the above-mentioned deadline to submit his Response.

The Center appointed Mayer Gabay as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. ”

Read the entire decision here

@AndrewHazen

According to Domain Name Wire, HEB Grocery Company, headquartered in San Antonio, is the first complainant to win a uniform domain name dispute resolution (UDRP) case for a .xxx domain name (HEB.xxx)

Atlanta resident Eric Gonzales registered the domain name after he claims to have contacted the grocery chain to see if they were going to register it.

Gonzales’ approach is certainly interesting. Here’s how the World Intellectual Property Forum panel summed it up:

Respondent is an individual, located in the U.S. state of Georgia, who indicates that he was doing “extensive research for a TV news report on businesses that have not registered .XXX domains with possible variations close to their names.” Respondent states that he contacted several businesses that bought .XXX domains after he brought the matter to their attention but that Complainant was not one of them so he bought the disputed domain because of Complainant’s failure to exhibit a proactive approach. Respondent states that he was later contacted by counsel for Complainant “DEMANDING” he relinquish control over the disputed domain but that Complainant never asked. Respondent states “Everything would have been avoided if they would have asked.”, because then he “would have gladly GIVEN” them the domain. Respondent noted several policies involving the .XXX gTLD which cause him to question the general availability of domain sites if they are allowed to be taken away by companies that fail to block the initial purchase. Respondent stated that he could have avoided dealing with this legal issue and consulting legal advice if Complainant had taken steps to block his purchase.

Another strike against Gonzales: he admitted he’s not part of the sponsored community (adult sites).

@AndrewHazen

According to the New York Times, in 2005, David Choe was invited to paint murals on the walls of Facebook’s first offices in Palo Alto, Calif., by Sean Parker, then Facebook’s president. As pay, Mr. Parker offered Mr. Choe a choice between cash in the “thousands of dollars,” according to several people who know Mr. Choe, or stock then worth about the same.

Mr. Choe, who has said that at the time that he thought the idea of Facebook was “ridiculous and pointless,” nevertheless chose the stock.

Many “advisers” to the company at that time, which is how Mr. Choe would have been classified, would have received about 0.1 to 0.25 percent of the company, according to a former Facebook employee. That may sound like a paltry amount, but a stake that size is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, based on a market value of $100 billion. Mr. Choe’s payment is valued at roughly $200 million, according to a number of people who know Mr. Choe and Facebook executives.

Today was the final day of DomainFest when the big domain auction is held…To date, the reported sales was $393,450 for 23 sold domains out of 61 domains.

The Top 10 Domain Name Sales were:
Place Domain Price
1 Empire.com $135,000.00
2 Qe.com $89,000.00
3 CatFood.com $62,000.00
4 Marriages.com $36,000.00
5 ICard.com $26,000.00
6 RentalTrucks.com $12,500.00
7 Avengers.com $4,000.00
8 Margo.com $4,000.00
9 StripMall.com $3,700.00
10 LiverDonor.com $3,000.00

It’s interesting to note that a few high bids were rejected for EO.com ($200k), Sox.com ($50k) and Drill.com ($42k)

@AndrewHazen

According to Domain Name Wire, legendary domainer Gary Chernoff has sold BowlingBalls.com for $225,000 to Nick Melnikoff, who has bowled in PBA tours and owns Bowlers Paradise, a web site that sells bowling balls and accessories.

Recent domain sales within the past year for Chernoff include:

BlueJeans.com – $150,000
Ripley.com – $78,000
MoneyLender.com – $75,000

Not bad and certainly motivating!! Congratulation Gary!!

@AndrewHazen