Go Daddy Phishing Email Going Around

Elliot Silver
-
7

I received an email that was preportedly from Go Daddy, and I want to warn you not to click on any of the links if you happen to receive one of these emails (or similar). The thing that tipped me off was that it was addressed to “Dear User” instead of the contact name on my account.

I keep my Whois information updated, so I generally ignore these email anyway. Never click on links from your registrar in emails, and always be on the lookout for these types of phishing attempts. It’s a surefire way to compromise your registrar account.

****************************** ***********
Important ICANN Notice Regarding Your Domain Name(s)
****************************** ***********

Dear User,

it is that time of year again. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) annually requires that all accredited registrars (like GoDaddy.com) ask their domain administrators/registrants to review domain name contact data, and make any changes necessary to ensure accuracy. According to our records you are the ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT for one or more domains registered at GoDaddy.com, Inc. as of Jan 1st, 2011.

To review/update your Account data, simply:
+ Login to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ You will be taken to a landing page and asked to enter your account information
Please take a look that your account and domain information is up to date.

If, however, your domain contact information is inaccurate, you must correct it. (Under ICANN rules and the terms of your registration agreement, providing false contact information can be grounds for domain name cancellation.) To review the ICANN policy, visit: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Should you have any questions, please email us at support@godaddy.com or call our customer support line at (480) 505-8877.

Thanks for your attention and thank you for being a GoDaddy.com, Inc. customer.

Sincerely,
GoDaddy.com, Inc. Domain Support

Entrepreneur Sends C&D to Owner of EntrepreneurOlogy.com, Owner Files Suit

Elliot Silver
-
7

There’s an interesting article in Bloomberg today about the owner of Entrepreneur magazine (Entrepreneur Media), which operates Entrepreneur.com. It seems that the company aggressively defends its marks for the term, “entrepreneur.”

In September of 2010, Austin entrepreneur, Daniel R. Castro, received a cease and desist letter from Entrepreneur Media with regards to his domain name, EntrepreneurOlogy.com. The domain name has been registered since 2004, and it appears to have been bought sometime between the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010. Interestingly, domain investor Page Howe appears to have owned the domain name in December of 2009.

Instead of simply handing the domain name over, Castro took preemptive legal action against Entrepreneur Media and filed a lawsuit. According to the Bloomberg article,

“In April a federal judge dismissed 12 of Castro’s 14 claims but said he could continue to pursue his allegation that EMI’s core trademark is invalid. As described in his court papers, Castro’s argument is that “the public has not come to associate the word ‘entrepreneur’ exclusively with EMI’s products or services.” The word, he adds, “is a generic noun that is in the public domain.”

It looks like Entrepreneur Media may have messed with the wrong domain name owner, who also happens to have a law degree. This is going to be an interesting case to follow, and it will hopefully be seen by legal council for other companies that operate on generic/descriptive terms that want to own everything associated with those words.

Interestingly, someone emailed me with a link to Entrepreneurs.com, which has more information about attempts to trademark the term, “entrepreneur.”

Will Zynga Move Forward Without GagaVille.com?

Elliot Silver
-
3

Gagaville.comOnline game company Zynga and pop singer Lady Gaga recently announced a unique partnership called Gagaville. According to CNN, GagaVille is “a uniquely designed neighboring farm to FarmVille, that sports unicorns and crystals,” with FarmVille being one of Zynga’s best known games.

Unfortunately for Zynga and Lady Gaga, it appears that someone else preempted them by registering GagaVille.com in December of 2009. The domain name was actually first registered in 2007, but it appears to have expired and then re-registered by the current owner. At present, the GagaVille.com domain name forwards to http://ledthings.com/gaga.

At present, Zynga is using Zynga.com/ladygaga for the launch page, but judging by its other domain registrations like Rewardville.com and CityVille.com, the company will likely want to own GagaVille.com.

Based on the facts that GagaVille.com is a forward rather than a separately developed website, and the owner appears to be a big Lady Gaga fan, as evidenced by his excitement over meeting Lady Gaga, perhaps a deal can be struck between both parties. I would not be surprised to see Zynga acquire GagaVille.com prior to launch.

Cleveland Browns Win UDRP for Browns.com

Elliot Silver
-
8

In March, I reported that the Cleveland Browns had filed a UDRP for Browns.com, and the UDRP decision was released today. The single panelist, Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman,  found in favor of the Cleveland Browns, and the domain name will be transferred to the football team ownership, barring any litigation.

The  respondent, a resident of Italy, did not provide a response to the UDRP. This seems to have played a role in the decision as the panelist stated, “The Respondent has not offered any such refutation, or replied at all, and the Panel is not aware from the evidence of any means by which the Respondent could succeed under the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise, to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

In my opinion, if the respondent doesn’t give a good reason for why he has a right to the domain name, I don’t think it should be expected for the panelist to find a reason on his own, especially in light of other information provided in the UDRP proceeding.

One piece of evidence that seriously doomed the respondent’s chances was the usage of the Wayback Machine, found at Archive.org. According to the decision, “In 2005, specific references and links appeared, to among other things, “Cleveland Browns”, “Cleveland Browns Tickets” and “National Football League”. By 2006, there were additional references to associated merchandise and to other football clubs, with similar content through 2009. The Complainant has produced evidence of content strongly impinging on its trademark and activities until January 4, 2011, interspersed with some periods of inactivity.”

It should be noted that there is a way for domain owners to get archived information removed from Archive.org, but that’s a topic for another post. This is important in the event a domain owner purchases a name from someone who may have previously infringed on the rights of another company.

One interesting facet of the decision was that there was a name change in the Whois between the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. While some panelists may have used this information to say that it was a new registration and not consider the real registration date, which is bad for domain owners, this panelist provided some rationale for a possible Whois registrant contact change:

“One possible interpretation of the facts of the present case is that the disputed domain name may have remained within the same entity, under the same guiding mind, before and after the registrant, administrative, technical and billing contacts were changed from “Gioacchino Zerbo” to “Andrea Denise Dinoia” on or before January 12, 2011; and therefore a new registration did not occur with that event.”

In my interpretation of the decision, the fact that there were football related links, specifically related to the complainant’s Cleveland Browns, coupled with the fact that the respondent didn’t respond to the UDRP, the panelist didn’t have much of a choice.

We’ll see if litigation is filed prior to the change of registrant, but it appears the Cleveland Browns will be able to move from ClevelandBrowns.com to Browns.com.

No Joke: Harvard Lampoon Files UDRP for Lampoon.com

Elliot Silver
-
5

Here’s a recently filed UDRP that is a bit frustrating to see as a professional domain investor.

Harvard Lampoon, a “humor publication” produced by college students at the esteemed Harvard University, has filed a UDRP for the seemingly descriptive domain name, Lampoon.com. The domain name is owned by Reflex Publishing, a company that holds one of the finest portfolios of descriptive/generic domain names.

Lampoon.com currently resolves to a standard Reflex Publishing PPC page with a wide variety of links. From what I can tell, it does not appear that Reflex is targeting or tailoring the links to capitalize on traffic from people looking for the Harvard Lampoon. Additionally, with the “CyberFinder.com” title (found on most Reflex Publishing landing pages), I can’t believe anyone with a brain would confuse this with the Harvard Lampoon website.

Aside from the term “lampoon” being a descriptive word, and in addition to the Harvard Lampoon publication, there’s also the National Lampoon, Chicago Lampoon, and of course the beloved National Lampoon’s Vacation, a great movie starring Chevy Chase. I don’t see how anyone would think they have rights to this domain name. It would almost be like Bank of America asserting it has rights to Bank.com (although Harvard does have a mark for the term Lampoon – see below).

Reflex Publishing appears to have owned Lampoon.com since at the very least 2005 and likely 1998 (records only go through 2005 for this one). Since the Harvard Lampoon has been around since the 1800s, what the heck has the organization been doing for the last several years if it thinks it has more rights to this domain name than Reflex? Why did they wait at least 6 years and maybe as long as 13 years to take action?

Yes, Harvard Lampoon has at least 2 live marks for Lampoon according to the USPTO, but I don’t see what took it so long to try and exercise its rights via UDRP. I wonder if the doctrine of laches would be applicable in this situation.

Report: Kate Middleton .com Domain Name Bought for Under $2,500

Elliot Silver
-
19

I read a report on TheProvince.com (a Canada-based website), this afternoon that said KateMiddleton.com was acquired by a Canadian couple for just $2,350. The domain name was originally registered in 2003, and the new owners have already launched a website on the site.

This has to be one of the better deals I’ve seen in a while, although generating revenue from it may prove to be difficult from a legal standpoint. Based on the content on the website, it seems that the couple is obviously targeting Kate Middleton, who is marrying Prince William in the “Royal Wedding” this Friday. Some day, it’s very likely that Kate Middleton will be Queen of England. There is no doubt that she is a famous person.

While many people have successfully defended owning domain names of famous people, there have been many that have lost. Generating revenue seems to be one of the ways a domain owner can risk losing a domain name via UDRP since it’s making money off of another person’s famous name. IP attorney Enrico Schaefer discussed this issue on his website a while back.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal expertise, but it would seem to me that it’s a risky proposition to have Google Adsense or other revenue generating links on this website (which it currently has). I know that making money is tempting, but to me, it doesn’t seem to be worth the risk, should the British government (or Kate Middleton) lay claim to this domain name. Not only is it a UDRP risk, but it may also be a financial risk as well.

Kate Middleton has been in the news for the last several months, and her name will continue to make news as she becomes a Princess. I think KateMiddleton.com is a great domain name, but monetizing it is a pretty big risk in my opinion.

1...727374...95Page 73 of 95