The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Verisign’s appeal today to overturn a previous ruling stating that the company cannot have a monopoly on the .com TLD. This stems from a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for ICANN Transparency (CFIT) against the firm for its no-bid contract with ICANN.

Currently VeriSign has a monopoly on .com and can set any price it wishes for the extension. It is more than likely going to appeal again in a higher court, but if this fails, other TLD operators will be able to sell .com domains to registrars. This extra competition could very well lower .com prices and increase service quality, something all domainers would love.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Could VeriSign lose its .com monopoly?

Recently there has been heated debate about whether or not WHOIS privacy protection, an inexpensive service that lets domain registrants hide their contact information from the public, should be allowed.

In the recent case U.S. v Kilbride, an American judge ruled that using privacy protection constitutes “material falsification.” The defendant was on trial for spamming.

The ruling does not make the use of domain privacy protection illegal. Rather, the judge believed the spammer on trial was using it as a means to evade the authorities.

Keep in mind that privacy protection services will reveal your contact information if presented with a valid subpoena. This can often be a problem for law enforcement officials, however, as the document can sometimes take weeks or months to obtain. Then again, there is nothing stopping an individual from faking contact information from the get-go.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Judge rules WHOIS privacy constitutes “material falsification”

In a ruling issued last week, a Los Angeles court ruled that a web host did not breach contract by suspending a rude customer.

The individual in question became angry after his hosting account was suspended for nonpayment. After leaving a rude voicemail at the company’s headquarters, the web host terminated his account. He then filed a lawsuit against the firm for breach of contract.

As it turns out, the customer promised “not to abuse whether verbally or physically or whether in person, via email or telephone or otherwise … any employee or contractor of [defendant],” when he agreed to the host’s terms of service at sign-up.

I guess it pays to be nice.

Source | Internet Cases

Continue reading: Court: Acceptable for host to terminate rude customer

Cybersquatting isn’t cheap these days. This week, a federal court upheld a $33 million (£20.3 million) ruling against OnlineNIC, a wholesale domain company, for cybersquatting the Verizon.com domain and trademarks.

OnlineNIC reportedly used an automated system to register some 663 names confusingly similar to Verizon.com, such as iphoneverizonplans.com, accountverizonwireless.com, and verizononline.com.

The domains earned revenue by displaying advertisements to visitors. The company claims to have only earned $1,468 from the names, however, and argued that the penalty is disproportionate to the revenue earned. This did not sway United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who stated:

OnlineNIC’s reference to its alleged profit fails to take any account of the damages suffered by Verizon in the form of a likelihood of confusion surrounding Verizon’s marks and the diversion of internet traffic to websites selling rival products. Moreover, OnlineNIC has made multiple false or misleadingly incomplete representations to Verizon and the Court over the course of this litigation, making it exceedingly difficult to accept OnlineNIC’s present representations as credible.

While it’s possible quite a bit more than $1,468 was earned from the domains, something tells me it wasn’t anything close to $33 million. Verizon may have suffered somewhat from the incident, but I doubt it lost very much in traffic or sales.

Source | The Register
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Cybersquatter ordered to pay $33 million to Verizon

Daniel Goncalves became the first domain hijacker to be arrested when New Jersey authorities pressed criminal charges against him for stealing P2P.com a few weeks ago

Though no court date has yet to be set, industry experts and cyber crime specialists are watching the case very closely. While the spectators themselves have no vested interest in the domain, if Goncalves is convicted, a precedent will be set up making it easier to convict future domain thieves.

In the past, most domain-related crimes weren’t considered criminal acts because of the virtual nature of the Internet. Nothing like the Goncalves case has ever been seen before in American courts, but once it has, prosecutors will have a much better understanding of how to handle domain theft and know whether or not this cyber crime is worth pursuing in the criminal justice system.

My guess is Goncalves will be found guilty. He should look forward to some jail time, the loss of the stolen domain, and possibly fines. Once authorities know they can successfully try a domain theft case in court, I think they will begin to devote more resources to the problem.

Source | ALB Legal News

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: More domain theft arrests could be on the way