Tag: Domain Dispute

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

LinkedIn files dispute over typosquatting domain LinkdIn.com that sold for $22K

LinkdIn.com

There have been a lot of disputes filed recently over typosquatting domain names that mislead consumers.  LinkedIn is now the latest company to file a complaint (Case No. 1417534) with the National Arbitration Forum over a popular typo domain – LinkdIn.com (missing the ‘e’).

What makes this case so interesting, and so expensive for one party, is that the current owner paid $22,000 USD to the buy the domain at SnapNames back in July 2010.  

SnapNames, which was founded in 2000 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oversee.net, operates one of the largest auction marketplaces of expired and deleting domain names.  The website also allows domain owners to sell names out of their own portfolio.

Mike Berkens of The Domains wrote about the sale last year on his domain industry news blog saying, “Its amazing in this day and age there are so many people willing to pay this kind of money for a domain that would be taken in a UDRP if a complaint is filed.”

It’s highly probable now with the dispute filed, that the domain will be taken.

Today, people who accidentally enter LinkdIn.com (the incorrect spelling) into their web browser instead of LinkedIn.com (the correct spelling), are redirected to a survey scam that asked a series of questions and attempts to gather personal information by promising free gifts like a $1,000 Walmart gift card, as shown in the screenshot above of the LinkdIn site.

Knowing also that LinkedIn Corporation has several registered LinkedIn trademarks, it should be no surprise that LinkedIn is pretty much guaranteed to win the dispute.

As Mike Berkens wrote over a year ago, “Yes I know the domain has traffic,  but its a bang on typo trademark domain with no other conceivable meaning.”

The panel with the National Arbitration Forum will determine whether the disputed domain meets the following three elements:

(1) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights
(2) the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and;
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 

If all three elements are met, the domain will be ordered transferred to LinkedIn Corporation. 

The truth of the matter is, it should be a quick open-and-shut case in favor of LinkedIn.

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

SalesForce.com attempts to hijack Forces.com by filing domain dispute

Marc Benioff Salesforce.com

Earlier this month, SalesForce.com filed a complaint (Case No. 1416951) with the National Arbitration Forum against Internet Venture Holdings (IVH) over the domain Forces.com.

While complainants in disputes filed with the National Arbitration Forum aren’t revealed until a panel delivers a decision, I contacted IVH to see if my suspicions were correct “that Salesforce.com was behind the complaint” and an IVH representative confirmed via e-mail that, indeed, Salesforce.com was the complainant.

What’s interesting about this case – and this isn’t unheard of – is that Salesforce.com not only has a good chance of losing the dispute, but it may face a claim of “reverse domain hijacking”.

If the software giant loses the dispute and IVH contends that Salesforce.com engaged in ‘reverse domain hijacking’, Salesforce.com could be labeled a “reverse hijacker” by the presiding panel.  “Reverse domain hijacking” is found if the company knew or should have known at the time that it filed the complaint, that it could not prove that forces.com was registered in bad faith. 

Though Salesforce.com has publicly acquired domain names in the past for large sums of money such as the purchase of Data.com for over $1.5 million, it doesn’t mean the company won’t bully smaller companies into giving up their domains if it doesn’t feel like paying the seller’s asking price.

Unfortunately, a finding of reverse domain hijacking likely won’t mean much punishment in terms of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

According to sources online:

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not expressly recognize reverse domain name hijacking and often only limits defendants’ recovery to retention or transference of the domain name. It also fails to provide any remedies for victims of attempted reverse cybersquatting. However, the statute permits some monetary relief where bad faith, reckless disregard or the willful violation of a court order are involved.

However, if Salesforce.com decides it still wants to acquire the domain after being labeled a “reverse hijacker”, the ball will definitely be in IVH’s court, who own hundreds of other prized, generic domains like Coast.com and Turquoise.com.

Even if Salesforce.com loses the dispute (which it should) and somehow avoids the hijacking label, I don’t see this ending well for Salesforce.com.

(Photo of Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com via Flickr)

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

Google going after YouTube typo domains that lead to survey scams

YouTube Scam Survey site

Google is going after several popular typos of the web address YouTube.com, all owned by the same person. 

Each typo domain leads unsuspecting users to a site that looks confusingly similar to the official YouTube site (as shown in the picture above of YouTub.com – minus the ‘e’).  Instead of landing on Google’s YouTube, users are taken to a survey scam that asks a series of questions and attempts to gather personal information by promising free gifts like Best Buy gift cards.

Google filed the complaint (Case No. 1416796) with the National Arbitration Forum this past week over the domain names: youtbe.com, youtub.com, youtue.com, youube.com, and yutube.com. 

The names are all registered to the same person as seen in WHOIS records, allowing Google to file one complaint that relates to more than one domain name, under UDRP rules.

According to rough traffic estimates provided by Compete.com, visitors number in the thousands to each site every month.  In October for example, YouTub.com reported over 6,000 unique visitors.

As with all domain disputes, each panel examines three elements before reaching a decision:

(1) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights
(2) the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and;
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 

If all three elements are satisfied, then the domain names will be ordered transferred to Google.

This will likely be an open-and-shut case for Google.  Earlier this month, Twitter Inc. won a similar dispute over the highly trafficked domain Twiter.com after filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

I’ve reached out to the owner of the disputed domain names for comment, and will update this story if I hear back.

Google had its own share of problems with the YouTube web address early on, but it found itself on the other side of a dispute.

Just weeks after acquiring the video site, Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment filed a lawsuit in 2006 after its site (utube.com) continuously crashed because of millions of people looking for YouTube.  Universal Tube ended up using utubeonline.com for its business web address, and kept ownership of utube.com – a site that today averages a million visitors per month according to Compete.

Discussion:TechCrunch, Silicon Republic, The Verge, Softpedia, Techmeme, iG Tecnologia and Punto Informatico

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

Lady Gaga wants the domain name rights to LadyGaga.org, files complaint

Lady Gaga

Pop singer-songwriter Lady Gaga who topped Forbes’ annual Celebrity 100 list as the most powerful celebrity is going to battle over the web address ladygaga.org, according to a recent complaint filed with the National Arbitration Forum.

Not only has Lady Gaga mastered the music scene, but she’s dominated the web and social media scene, and has more Twitter followers than anyone else in the world (at the time of this posting, 12,886,773 followers on @LadyGaga).  

Though Lady Gaga works on behalf of non-profit organizations and donates money, she may be planning her own official non-profit organization.  Because of all her philanthropy, it comes as no surprise that a domain dispute has been filed for the .org web address, a domain that’s intended for non-profit organizations.

The domain dispute (case No. 1403808) has been filed with the National Arbitration Forum. 

Lady Gaga domain dispute

Because the National Arbitration Forum doesn’t publicly identify complainants on its website until a decision has been reached, the official complainant isn’t known at this time, but it’s safe to say it’s either Lady Gaga or her production team, Mermaid Music LLC, which is the registrant of LadyGaga.com.

The dispute which has been filed against oranges arecool XD (the current registrant), may be an open and shut case for the NAF panel.

As I wrote about back in early June, oranges arecool XD owns and operates other celebrity domains and websites including blakelively.com, jennifer-hudson.com, beyoncegallery.net, mirandakerr.com, alilarter.net and dozens more.

Ladygaga.org is currently a Lady Gaga fan site.

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News Video Games

Activision files complaint over ModernWarfare3.com, posted online

Modernwarfare3.com domain dispute

Breaking update July 19, 2011 04:57 AM EST:  The identity of ModernWarfare3.com has now been revealed.

**

Activision has had enough with ModernWarfare3.com.

The gaming company has filed its first domain name dispute with the National Arbitration Forum.

The complaint was filed today, July 15, a week after the mystery owner of the domain started re-directing the URL to EA’s Battlefield.com, sparking a flurry of news stories.

Although I track domain disputes filed with the National Arbitration Forum and the World Intellectual Property Organization, I didn’t find out about the dispute through their online databases, instead I found out about the dispute when I paid a visit to ModernWarfare3.com.

As of today, ModernWarfare3.com is back to its old format online, but with a twist.  Sitting on the home page is a copy of the complaint (read here) the owner received.

Now begins the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), which was adopted by ICANN in the late nineties.

The complaint cost Activision $2,600 USD to file for a three-member panel.

The 11-page document, includes among other things, reasons by Activision as to why the respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the name.

Activision states, “It appears that the Respondent supports the game Battlefield from the game developer Electronic Arts (“EA”).  EA is one of Complainant’s principal competitors in the video game industry, and Battlefield game competes in the marketplace with Complainant’s MODERN WARFARE games and its other military-themed shooter games in the CALL OF DUTY series.”

Discussion: Kotaku, gameinformer, Electronic Arts UK Community, Gaming Union, RipTen, GameSpot, Benzinga, Games On Net, GoNintendo, Joystiq, IGN, ars technica,  The Daily BLAM!, Game Rant, Digital Trends, VideoGamer, GameSpy, Kit Guru, MCV, The Inquirer, PCWorld, The Escapist, Facepunch, Gamasutra, VE3D, Lazygamer, The Morton Report, Spong, 1UP and bnet