Keep up to date with the latest news happening in the domain industry.
Google Kills Hosted AdSense for Domains on Undeveloped Sites
Google sent out a message today to publishers using Adsense for Domains. After nearly 4 years of running the program, the company has decided to discontinue their hosted Adsense for Domains on undeveloped domain names. The company is recommending migrating your domain names to a parking company.
Domainers relished the release of the Adsense for Domains program as a possible way to “cut out the middle man” and bypass the parking companies, but most domainers who spoke with DNN have found that the program provided no additional benefits.
One part of the announcement that seems puzzling, Google claims that the “benefits to our partner network” don’t make sense to continue, yet Google recommends switching to parking domains through a parking company that uses a Google feed. Google is in essence including the middle-man in this scenario. The parking companies may be adding the benefit of aggregation, optimization and fraud screening that Google does not handle, but it would seem that this skill-set is in Google’s “wheelhouse” . After 4 years they could have easily handled these tasks if not great improved upon the optimization and screening already being done by smaller players.
See the full message from Google after the jump.
We?re contacting you because you?re using AdSense for Domains to monetize your undeveloped domains. After evaluating the benefits of our partner network, we?ve decided to retire the Hosted domains product within AdSense. Going forward, undeveloped domains will only be served through our existing AdSense for Domains distribution network.
Our records show that XXX of your Hosted domains will be affected by this upcoming change, which will follow the schedule below:
March 21: You?ll no longer be able to create new Hosted domains
April 18: Hosted domains will become inactive and it?ll no longer be possible to earn from them
June 27: Hosted domains will no longer be available in AdSense accounts
To continue monetizing your undeveloped domains, you can migrate your domain portfolio to any domain parking provider. Find out how in our Migration Guide:
Please note that this upcoming change won?t affect any other AdSense products you?re currently using or the availability of other products to you. In addition, reporting on your Hosted domains will remain available throughout the schedule above and for a period following the retirement.
For more information see the Help Center. We appreciate your understanding and thank you for your patience as we continue to develop new features and offerings within AdSense.
UDRP: Abusive Supplemental Filings in the case of AutoOwnersInsurance.com
The following is a guest post by Paul Raynor Keating (paul@law.es). He is a domain industry attorney with offices in Barcelona and London.
The recent decision in autoownersinsurance.com is a perfect example of things going from worse to horrible. While the decision itself contains many substantive flaws, my overwhelming issue is with the lack of due-process rights evidenced by this UDRP.
The complaint was limited to a 3-paragraph argument which asserted a USPTO registration for ?Auto-Owners?. The complaint asserted lack of legitimate interest because the domain was used in PPC and included links to insurance (surprise). The complaint did not allege bad faith registration and allegations of bad faith use were limited to the same PPC argument.
Read more after the jump.
The timely response explained that the mark was a ?design? mark obtained under 2(f). For those unfamiliar, a 2(f) application is required when a mark is not ?distinctive?. The registration is granted based on the ex-parte submissions of the applicant. ?Ex-parte? means that no one is allowed to challenge the application. We argued the domain was not identical or confusingly similar given the additional descriptive term which substantially expanded upon the mark. We noted that while the complainant alleged common law trademark rights in ?auto owners insurance?, there was not one scintilla of evidence (not even a hair) supporting the claim.
Complainant?s legitimate interest and bad faith claims were limited to the fact insurance links appeared on the PPC page. The PPC results for insurance were hardly surprising since the domain was inherently descriptive. Insurance is after all required in most places and of obvious interest to ?auto owners?.
On the February 14th respondent received Complainant?s supplemental filing (?CSF?) which my email records showed to have been filed late.The CSF included 13 pages of argument and 9 new exhibits covering 191 pages, representing over 7.3 MEGABYTES of data. The CSF substantially amended the original complaint and for the first time included evidence supporting a common law trademark claim. Respondent started preparing a reply which was set for filing on the night of the 21st. Just prior to filing, Respondents received a decision dated February 21st! The decision makes it clear that the entirety of the CSF was considered by the panel. The decision does not even discuss the propriety of the CSF.
It is shocking that a UDRP panel would issue a decision 4 working days after receipt of a CSF, particularly one that was of such length and magnitude. There was no communication from the panel and four (4) days to respond to what amounted to an entirely new complaint with substantially more allegations and evidence is blatantly unfair. The timing of the decision implies that it was written on Friday for submission on Monday and immediately issued on Tuesday. Given the length of the decision (13 pages), it is unlikely to have been written on Monday and I have my doubts that a 3-member panel would have worked over the weekend on a UDRP.
Aside from the lack of opportunity to respond, I was personally shocked that the panel would have the CSF considered at all. The UDRP provides for supplemental filings only upon panel request.
12. Further Statements
In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties.
Although NAF has its notorious Supplemental Rule 7, NAF panels have held that SR 7 is controlled by Policy Paragraph 12 (?[T]he controlling provision is Paragraph 12 of ICANN?s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ?Rules?), under which discretion to request such supplementation rests with the Panel.? (Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC. c/o Manish Patel, FA0648190 (NAF April 10, 2006)). SR 7(f) prohibits supplementals that would amend a complaint.
Even those panels accepting supplemental filings have limited them to exceptional circumstances. Prior panels have repeatedly held that and the failure to submit evidence of trademark rights does not qualify as ?exceptional? and ?does not constitute sufficiently exceptional or proper circumstances for the Panelist to exercise discretion and to request any further information from the Complainant.? (Autobytel.com inc. v. Sand WebNames, D2001-0076); see also: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises, D2000-0416 ?There is no provision in the Rules for a party to file an additional submission without leave of the Panel.?).
The Policy specifically limits the breadth of supplemental rules:
?Supplemental Rules means the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these Rules. Supplemental Rules shall not be inconsistent with the Policy or these Rules and shall cover such topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, file size and format modalities, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover sheets.?
By listing examples, the Policy makes it clear that supplemental rules are permitted to cover only non-substantive matters. Imposing a 5-day deadline for a supplemental reply is clearly non-administrative and such a short period inherently conflicts with the Policy.
In this decision the panel ignored the language of Paragraph 12 AND the prior precedent which limits supplementals to (a) those requested by the panel and (b) to those reflecting exceptional situations where Complainant could not have reasonably anticipated the need to incorporate the supplemental matters in the complaint.
By ignoring Paragraph 12 and the Policy limitation on supplemental rules, the respondent is faced with a bush-whacking opportunity. The Complaint has all the time in the world to prepare and file the complaint (even laches is not a defense). The Respondent is limited to a 20-day window. The CSF amounted to a complete ?do-over?. The complainant filed a boiler-plate ?place-holder? complaint and then filed its ?real? complaint as a ?supplemental? leaving Respondent with virtually no time in which to respond.
Given the repeated references to fairness (both in the UDRP and in NAF?s own website), the issuing of the decision without an opportunity to respond is morally and legally wrong.
ICANN must resolve this issue. NAF?s SR7 is in inherent conflict with the UDRP which is the only binding obligation of the respondent. The ADR provider may not adopt rules that are in conflict with the UDRP and the panels may not enforce supplemental rules to the extent they are in conflict with the UDRP and the basic concept of fairness that is supposed to prevail under the Policy. By failing to address such abuse, ICANN is exposing the entire contractual arbitration process to distain and legal challenge. While not perfect, stability and inherent fairness is fundamental to the proper functioning of the UDRP. The panel (and NAF) in this case ignored both.
Why Businesses Should Not Rely On Facebook URLs For Advertising
Recently we’ve seen more and more companies use Facebook URLs in their advertising. While other marketers, and also of course domainers, are against the practice, it appears this is now a more relevant question. Facebook recently took the URL facebook.com/muenchen away from the official city portal and reserved it for their own use.
Facebook URLs – Yours today, gone tomorrow? Facebook is planning to create city portals
As German news-site Heise Online reported Facebook apparently took away the URL facebook.com/muenchen from the official portal of the city Munich (Muenchen in German) first citing technical difficulties as the reason. For more than a week the Facebook page has not been reachable under its old address.
The page had gathered almost 400,000 fans according to Lajos Csery, who is the manager of the company operating the city portal. In an interview with Bayerischer Rundfunk, he stated that there had been no advance notice from Facebook and when they inquired about the issue they were told that there was a technical issue. Later on they found out that Facebook is planning to set up their own city portals and Facebook has now moved the page to facebook.com/Stadtportal.Muenchen (city portal Munich), which so far only has about 1,200 “likes”. Facebook told the operator that the “fans” will still be moved to the new page. City names without additions are no longer permitted as Facebook URL names according to the recently changed rules of Facebook.
In a similar story pharmaceutical company Merck sued Facebook, in order to receive information why “their” Facebook URL to a US company with the same name. According to the BBC, Facebook had cut a deal with the company but had not followed through with giving the company the URL.
As Facebook becomes an important marketing tool and usernames and vanity URLs become more coveted, you can be sure that Facebook will find a way to monetize on this. Savvy marketers should be more and more wary of using these URLs in offline marketing and protect themselves for the possibility that “their” Facebook URL will be taken away too.
Aftermarket.com published a video today promoting their domain name aftermarket services. What do you think? How long do you think until someone registers the sample domain used in the video, IAmTheDonutKing.com?
Since the sale of eSignature.com that Jen Sale and Mike Robertson of Domain Guardians brokered last year, they told DNN that they’ve had a lot of demand to broker a number of other premium domain names.
Thus they have decided to roll this service out publicly. As a part of the new offering, they are launching a monthly newsletter.
Domain Guardians was founded last year as an ICANN accredited registrar providing domain estate planning and management services to domain professionals.
Disclaimer: Adam Strong, Managing Editor & Owner of DNN, also is a partner in Domain Guardians.
Why UDRP Panel Certification is Important: HardwareResources.org
The following is a guest post by Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Paul is an attorney specializing in the domain space. He has offices in Barcelona and London.
Although the UDRP has functioned for over a decade, the evidence continues to mount in favor of a certification process so all can be assured that panelists have the proper legal knowledge and address claims seriously. Examples abound of panel errors but I have seen few that competes with the likes of Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, Claim Number: FA1201001423229 (HardwareResources.org), a recent decision by NAF-favored panelist Atkinson (see the related study by Zak Muscovitch).
In Hardware Resources, the panelist was so absorbed with the Complainant?s assertions that he failed to examine even the most basic aspects of the claim. Granted the case was a default. But that provides little excuse given the obviousness of the problems. Given Mr. Atkinson?s litigation experience (he authored an article entitled “How to Respond to Trial Objections in 1995), I am somewhat perplexed.
Complainant asserted 4 registered trademarks for ?HR Hardware Resources?. A 10-second trip to the USPTO site satisfied my surprise that the PTO would allow registration of such a descriptive trademark. Complainant?s ?trademarks? consisted of 2 text marks and 2 design marks. Each of the marks contained the following disclaimer:
?NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “HARDWARE RESOURCES” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.?
The significance of the disclaimer is of course that the Complainant had expressly disclaimed the words ?Hardware Resources? if they did not appear with ?HR?. Perhaps Mr. Atkinson (or more likely the intern at NAF who may have written the decision?) missed that bit.
Notwithstanding the clear disclaimers, the Mr. Atkinson boldly stated:
?The differences between the mark and the disputed domain name include the deletion of the initial letters ?H? and ?R? of Complainant?s mark, the removal of the space between the terms, and the addition of the generic top-level domain (?gTLD?) ?.org.? The Panel holds that removing letters from a mark does not differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark.?
Had Mr. Atkinson (or his associate) taken 20 seconds of time he could easily have discovered that the elimination the ?HR? was in fact material for the simple reason that Complainant held no trademark rights in their absence. Actually, come to think if it, the disclaimer would have been printed in the trademark registration certificate that Complainant surely produced.
From this highpoint, the analysis gets only worse. Legitimate interest is found lacking because ?using a confusingly similar disputed domain name to host pay-per-click links and pop-up advertisements, whether competing or not, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).? Of course no mention is made of the descriptive nature of the asserted trademark or of the domain.
The authority for the panelist?s position? Two NAF decisions, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Collazo, FA 144628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2003) and ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007). The panelist was obviously not familiar with either of the decisions. Hewlett-Packard addressed the domain HPCanada.com. HP is obviously a famous, non-descriptive mark and there could be no legitimate interest in using the domain to display links for computer equipment. Alpitour dealt with the domain BravoClub.com. The asserted mark was used for a hotel chain and obviously not descriptive; respondent used the domain for PPC for (surprise?.) hotels. Exactly how HardwareResources.org presents a factual or legal scenario that is even close to Hewlet-Packard or Aplitour is a mystery.
Going from bad to worse, Mr. Atkinson next finds bad faith because Respondent offered to sell the domain to the Complainant for a whopping $40.00. Surely this is a joke. The opinion is apparently based on an empty allegation by complainant. God forbid there be any reference to evidence. I am always amazed how far panelists will go to ?justify? an expansion beyond the actual text of the UDRP when doing so in favor of complainants. I rarely see this when the issue might favor the respondent. This $40-issue is yet another example. While it is possible that $40.00 was more than the out-of-pocket costs, the rule in this regard is tied to the concept of targeting and registering domain names for the purpose of holding them ransom to a known trademark holder. This case fails the mark by any stretch and by even mentioning the issue Mr. Atkinson opens both himself and the UDRP process to ridicule.
Yet again showing his preference for complainants, Mr. Atkinson finds bad faith registration based upon PPC use with websites that “have featured pay-per-click links, some relating to Complainant?s competitors and some being simply generic” and some that “displayed information about Complainant“. Mr. Atkinson thus finds that the respondent must have registered the domain “to attract consumers and create confusion for its own profit“. This is lumped together with the $40-issue to support a finding of bad faith.
It is telling that the only reference to ?generic? was in the Complainant?s allegations. The panelist certainly does not mention the word or deal at all with the descriptive nature of the phrase at issue. The use of a descriptive domain for descriptive purposes has repeatedly been found both legitimate and in good faith. It has long been held that the foundational issue is whether the respondent ?targeted? the complainant. Here, the Complainant had no trademark in ?Hardware Resources?. The domain was used for ? guess what ? PPC links related to items long considered to be hardware-related. That Complainant may have appeared in any of the PPC links is the fault of the Complainant who voluntarily selected a less-than-stellar trademark.
The most important lesson to be learned here, however, is not that Mr. Atkinson should abstain from being involved in the UDRP process. The important lesson is that decisions such as these destroy the carefully structured balance of the UDRP process as a whole. Respondents are repeatedly told that they can legitimately register and use domain names for descriptive purposes. It instills little confidence in the ?system? when panelists such as Mr. Atkinson issue ill-thought out opinions such as this one.
While panelists aren?t earning the salaries of bankers in New York, this case shows that 20 seconds of thought would have produced the correct result. Trademark disclaimers are there for a reason; without the disclaimer the USPTO would not have issued the registration. It defies logic to permit a registration with a disclaimer and then support a trademark in only what has been disclaimed. Complainants must be held responsible for selecting descriptive trademarks. After all, they do it for a reason ? a descriptive mark gives them a leg-up on the competition. If a consumer is looking for ?hardware?, coming across a sign for ?hardware resources? leads to the assumption that one will indeed find hardware items there. However, having selected such descriptive marks they should not be permitted to use them as a sword to prevent others from doing so.
And, $40 for a domain name? I am not sure who was being sillier; the panelist in using this as bad faith or the respondent who thought it was a good idea to make the offer.
Secret Service Takes Down Hosted Form Service JotForm.com For a Day
As reported by Wired, it appears that domain seizures are no longer the domain of the ICE alone. It appears that registrar Go Daddy took down the hosted webform service JoftForm.com by changing the domain name’s nameservers. Even though an update to a blog post about the suspension on the site’s blog mentioned that the site is back online, DNN has not been able to access it under it’s old domain name at the time of this post.
The Domain was suspended on February 15th, 2012
JotForm asked their users to switch their form integrations from JotForm.com to Jotform.net
The company operating JetForm (Interlogy Internet Technologies) switched their other domains from Go Daddy to Namecheap and Hover.
The nameservers were switched back at Feb 16th 5pm EST
2 million user generated forms by hundreds of thousand of users were affected by the take down
Interlogy Internet Technologies has yet to receive an explanation for the shutdown of the site
Last year the ICE seized mooo.com, which runs a free DNS service, and shut down 84,000 subdomains for two days while they were targeting a single site within the network.
According to an article in the Herald Sun, the Australian Football League (AFL) has applied for the .AFL domain in the new Top Level Domain program currently under way by ICANN. Applications in the first round are accepted until April 12th, 2012. The AFL does not own AFL.com.
[...] Andrew Callerall, the leagues General Manager of strategic marketing, has admitted the move was partly made to defend it from another organisation buying the address.
?The primary reasons for us looking to secure it are to protect the space and for the commercial and marketing over time,? Mr Callerall said.
?We just thought it wise to make the application and secure it now and we think within 10 years or 20 years down the track it could be a key driver.?
If there are other applications applying for the same TLD string, the AFL might have to continue their bidding in an auction.
Since the sale of eSignature.com that Jen Sale and Mike Robertson of 