Someone at Facebook headquarters just said, “Uh oh.” The social media site announced a new feature this morning: Facebook Zero. Slated for launch in a few weeks, Zero is a text-only version of Facebook available for free on mobile phones. The problem? The company forgot to register FacebookZero.com.

After Facebook Zero was announced, a domainer in China picked up the name. Facebook had intended to use the URL zero.facebook.com for the service all along, but not having the domain is a huge disadvantage.

Luckily for Facebook, it can probably get the name back simply by filing a complaint with an arbitration panel. But it could have saved itself a lot of pain and agony by simply registering the name in the first place.

Continue reading: Facebook forgets to register FacebookZero.com

When NBA star Chris Bosh sued cybersquatter Luis Zavala over the domain Hoopology.com, the judge awarded him the name plus $120,000 in damages. Because of Zavala’s likely inability to pay the judgment, however, the judge has handed over his entire domain portfolio to Bosh. It consists of some 800 sports and celebrity-related names.

What does the basketball player intend to do with the names? He says he only wanted his domain back and is willing to transfer any of other 800 names– many of which infringe on the rights of other stars– to their rightful owners for free. Granted, there have been mutterings by some domainers that Bosh’s intentions are less than honest, but we’ll see what happens.

Photo | carlosan

Continue reading: NBA player receives 800 domains in court judgment

In yet another domain dispute victory for Google, the WIPO has ruled against a cybersquatter and in favour of theMountain View company in a case involving the domain googlenetbiz.com.

As is generally the norm, Google contended that the domain violated its trademark and that it was being used in bad faith. The registrant, an Indian national by the name of Racha Ravinder, might have been able to put up some form of defense. He put the nail in the coffin with his response to the complaint, however, stating, “I will sell my domain googlenetbiz.com for USD 50,000 only, do you buy it.”

By submitting this statement, Ravinder unknowing committed cybersquatting. If the WIPO didn’t have a reason to hand the name over before his response, it did after.

Source | Express India
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: WIPO rules against cybersquatter

Data collected from a number of arbitration panels, including the WIPO and National Arbitration Forum, show that cybersquatting may be on the decline. Last year saw a 9% decline in the number of cybersquatting cases filed overall, a three-year low.

Unfortunately, this decrease does not necessarily mean the number of cybersquatters has gone down. Instead, complainants are saving money by filing for multiple domains at once. The actual number of domains disputed before panels has actually increased.

According to the WIPO and NAF, 90% of cases last year were decided in favour of the complainant.

Continue reading: Cybersquatting may be on the decline

Last week, Apple won a domain dispute in which it accused a Los Angeles entrepreneur, Daniel Bijan, of cybersquatting. Bijan lost 16 domains to the company famous for its iPhone and iPod products. Now he has issued a public statement regarding the incident.

The domainer says he was “naive at the time” he registered the first of the 16 domains, MacbookPro.com. He states he never received any legal notices from Apple and because of this, assumed he was in the clear. Bijan claims he set up affiliate sites that redirected users to sites selling Apple products and never promoted competitors. Apple’s complaint to ICANN states otherwise.

Continue reading: Alleged cybersquatter defends actions

Domain registrants can be sued for cybersquatting, but are registrars liable as well? Until recently, life insurance company Transamerica thought so. The company was in the process of suing several prominent domain registrars for trademark infringement– all because several of their customers had registered domains containing Transamerica’s trademark. Thankfully, the insurance firm dropped the lawsuit today.

The idea of blaming a registrar for the actions of its customers is a bit ludicrous. How can you expect a company that handles thousands of transactions per day to screen each domain for possible trademarks? You can’t. It’s up to the trademark holder to enforce his or her mark, not a third party. Even if Transamerica had continued its suit, I doubt it would have won in court.

Continue reading: Transamerica drops lawsuit against domain registrars

When the UAE renamed the Burj Dubai as the Burj Khalifa this week, they apparently didn’t think the domain name of the world’s tallest building was important. While the skyscraper’s developers missed out on the domain, a lucky Pakistani was quick to grab it shortly after the name change was announced.

It amazes me how the developers of a $1.5 billion domain can forget to do something so simple. The massive building contains 160 floors and 24,348 windows. It was built using more than 4,000 tons of steel and can hold up to 25,000 people, but doesn’t have a .com domain. Instead, the developers have registered and are now using burjkhalifa.ae.

The exact identity of the registrant isn’t known as the person has enabled WHOIS privacy protection on the name.

Source | Gulf News
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Pakistani grabs burjkhalifa.com

Anthony Fox of Tennessee, USA registered Netlix.com to launch the website for his web hosting service company called Netlix Inc. Little did he know that the DVD giant, now famous for dethroning Blockbuster Video would file a complaint of cybersquatting against him.

The argument is that the name netlix.com is confusingly similar to netflix.com, but as with all such cases, they also had to prove that Fox did not have a legitimate right or interest in the domain and that he registered it in bad faith. Fox registered the domain back in 1999 and kept it, although his company is apparently no longer around. Netflix argued that he was now only using it as an advertising portal.

Unlike most cases denial cases, where the panel finds that there was no bad faith, this one was decided by the first clause. Netlix.com, the panel decided, is not confusingly similar to Netflix.com because of the missing “f” and no evidence that it would confuse customers. Furthermore, the panel ruled against Netflix on the latter two clauses since Fox had used the domain for business in the past and had a long connection with it.

Source: UDRPSearch
Photo: Flickr

Continue reading: Netflix loses domain dispute over Netlix.com

With all the talk in the news of golf master Tiger Woods lusting after mistresses, cybersquatters have been lusting after domains bearing his name. Dozens of domains and sites related to the scandal are up for sale on eBay, including:

• TigersHarem.com
• TigerGotWood.com
• TigersLitter.com
• TigerTexts.com

One cybersquatter declared:

Tiger Woods and his multiple affairs are the talk of the world. Now is your chance to cash in on one of the biggest celebrity scandals we have seen in years… The Tiger Woods craze is only gaining momentum and will continue to thunder along well into 2010,” says the seller wooing the buyers.

So far, most of these domain auctions seem to have been pulled from eBay. Either way, I don’t know of anyone in their right mind who would buy them. According to one source, the seller of TigersHarem.com wanted $21 million USD for the domain.

Source | India Times
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Cybersquatters lust after Tiger Woods domains

Coca-Cola has won rockncoke.net in a domain name arbitration case at the WIPO. The beverage company claimed the domain was confusing similar to its trademark and used in bad faith.

The panel responsible for the ruling also believes that the registrant intended to sell the name to Coca-Cola and turn a profit. This is a clear-cut case of cybersquatting.

Rock’n Coke is a music festival sponsored by Coca-Cola held every summer in Istanbul, Turkey. Performer’s at this year’s event included Linkin Park, Kaiser Chiefs, and Nine Inch Nails.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Domain name arbitration

Analysis done by blog Domain Name Wire shows that cybersquatting is at an all-time low.

The site took a look at the number of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) filings for .com domains. It found that despite an increase in the quantity of registrations, the number of disputes filed has decreased from 1 out of every 7,000 .com names in 2000 to 1 in 20,000 in 2008.

Cybersquatting has become less prevalent for a number of reasons. Companies have been more diligent about registering domains containing their trademarks in a timely manner. Increased awareness about cybercrime and its penalties have also made cybersquatting less attractive.

It will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of gTLDs has on cybersquatting. Personally, I expect to see an increase in the number of cases. More extensions will provide more opportunities for trademark infringement.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Cybersquatting plummits to an all-time low

Delta Airlines won a dispute over the domain delta-tickets.com at the WIPO last week. The name was originally registered by Jannie Blazek, a citizen of the Czech Republic.

The one-person arbitration panel sided with Delta, agreeing with the airline that the domain was being used in bad faith.

According to the WIPO, Blazek was using the Delta name fraudulently, claiming to sell airline tickets and collecting credit card numbers in the process. He also failed to respond when the dispute was filed by Delta.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case to me.

Photo | LeeA

Continue reading: Delta wins arbitration case