I get a load of emails advertising cheap registrations, but this seems like a very good deal on .IN domain names from Answerable.com (although I haven’t used them before). Jeff from Inforum.in discussed .in domains a couple of months ago, and TRAFFIC Amsterdam will be covering ccTLDs.
Discounted .IN and Third level .IN Domains
Make the most of our latest Answerable.com Promo that has just gone Live! We’re giving away both .IN and Third Level .IN Domains for just $5.99!
.IN is a great vanity TLD which is representative of the Internet as a whole. It is also mighty helpful in targeting the vast Indian geography. So what are you waiting for, cash in on this offer before it ends.
The promo is applicable for the first year of registration only. Thus, a two year .IN Domain registration will be billed as Promo Pricing + Regular Price for 1 year.
Renewals and Transfer-Ins will not attract promo pricing.
There are no restrictions on the number of domains that you can register during this period.
Andrew Allemann of Domain Name Wire just launched a new website where you can rate various aspects of your favorite (or least favorite) registrar. The new website, called Registrar Judge, allows users to submit reviews on 12 of the largest domain registrars, with the plan to add more registrars in the future.
This is a nice way to provide feedback to others in the domain industry as well as those who work for the registrars. Congrats to Andew on the launch!
I would like to know if any registrars offer any special security lock that a domain owner can place on his account if he will be away for a period of time without email access. If someone goes out of the country on vacation and doesn’t have email access, I would think his domain names would be at greater risk, as any change to the domain names would be undetected until his return, which could be too late to take preventative action.
I would think it would be easy for a registrar to place the entire account into a lockdown so domain names in the account couldn’t be transferred or have their DNS changed. This feature should be easily to implement by the domain owner, and it should require something more than an email upon return to re-activate the account.
With domain security a high priority these days, this feature is something that I think would be very important for every registrar to have.
In the United States, smoking is perfectly legal for people who are 18 years of age or older. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to consume alcohol if you are 21 years of age or older. Corner stores and supermarkets are required to check the identification of anyone trying to buy one of these products if they look younger than a certain age. There are also notices on the packaging explaining the health risks of consuming these products. Of course people still do consume the products after reading the warning labels, but the government lets them know the risk and gives them something to think about.
As it stands right now, knowingly profiting off of the trademark and goodwill of a company via domain name is against the Lanham Act and can lead to penalties of up to $100,000 per domain name. Also as it stands right now, this fact may not be known by thousands of domain registrants who knowingly register infringing domain names each day, but unknowingly break the law.
When I first entered the domain business, I frequently heard stories about the Internet pioneers who registered domain names of major brands before those brands thought to register them on their own. They were frequently rewarded with large sums of money from the brand owner, as Internet law was still fuzzy, and owning a generic domain name like Apple.com, Bud.com or McDonalds.com wasn’t against any laws. If a person does not know that they aren’t permitted to sell a domain name that includes the word Microsoft to the company named Microsoft, they may register the domain name with that intent. While seasoned domain investors know the law, unseasoned buyers may think what they are doing is legitimate.
I will be the first to admit that I registered a few domain names that may have infringed on brands while I was in graduate school when I first started out investing in domain names. Little did I know, there were laws against doing this – and this was in 2003! I am very fortunate that I never faced any penalties for doing this, and since learning about the Lanham Act, I haven’t knowingly registered an infringing domain name because I don’t have the stomach to worry about potential legal issues. No, I am not better than anyone else, but the knowledge of the law and knowledge of the stiff penalties encouraged me to stick to very defensible generic domain names.
With cybersquatting continuing to grow and be reported in the mainstream press, I think we need to begin to hold the registrars somewhat accountable. Sure it would be impossible to completely prohibit people from registering infringing domain names because who is to say what is infringing or not. However, I think the registrars should provide a notice at the checkout stage of domain registration if a person is about to buy a domain name that probably contains a famous mark. I said this same thing back in July, but as cybersquatting continues to grow, now is the time to reiterate it.
I don’t think registrars should disallow someone from registering a domain name with a famous mark as that would be utterly subjective. But I do think they should put a notice about the Lanham Act, in case a person is unaware of the ramifications of owning an infringing domain name. It is scary to think that a $7.00 domain registration can cause a $100,000 lawsuit.
Registrars should at least give notice to their customers. At a time when the domain industry is facing tumult from outsiders, domain registrars should at least do something to help protect and inform their registrants, rather than simply take their money and not care what happens after. I know this is a stretch, as we have seen some registrars automatically offer up advertising on domain names that are simply parked on their servers, and they don’t seem to pay attention to whether they are monetizing a trademarked domain name or not. It’s a stretch, but it’s time domain registrars become more accountable.
In this morning’s New York Times, there’s an article about an English travel agent who owned several Cuba-related domain names which were shut down by his registrar eNom, due to their listing on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). While owning and operating these websites on his own soil is legal, since they were being managed by eNom, a US-based domain registrar, eNom had to take possession of the domain names and essentially put the owner out of business.
While I am not going to debate the merits of this decision by the Treasury Department, I do think it is important for everyone to take a few moments and check to see where their domain registrar is located. Just a few months ago, a similar situation occurred with Internet gaming giant Bodog, whose domain names were taken and awarded to a litigant who filed suit in the US. While the situation was different then, it still shows that a US government decision or a ruling in a US court could potentially lead to losing domain names.
When doing business in another country, it is important to know that country’s laws related to your business. Since many non-Americans who own domain names are doing business with American-based companies, it is important to know US law when it comes to domain names and online activities. If you should have any questions related to domain name law, I urge you to contact an attorney.
According to today’s post on DomainNameNews, a class action lawsuit was filed against Network Solutions and ICANN by the law firm of Kabateck Brown Kellner. The firm issued a press release announcing the action earlier today.
This is the second article written by Frank and Adam today about Network Solutions, the first being an article about the company monetizing a racially sensitive domain name owned by the NAACP, presumably to prevent links like this from being displayed.