Pakistani grabs burjkhalifa.com

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

Netflix loses domain dispute over Netlix.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

Cybersquatters lust after Tiger Woods domains

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

Domain name arbitration

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

Cybersquatting plummits to an all-time low

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

Delta wins arbitration case

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

Kate Hudson initiates battle for KateHudson.com

Award-winning actress Kate Hudson submitted a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum this week over the domain KateHudson.com. She is asking that the name be transferred to her.

The registrant is Fei Zhu, a Shanghai resident. He has owned the name since 2006, but it will be hard for him to prove he isn’t using the name in bad faith.

Kate Hudson is best known for her roles in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Bride Wars, and Almost Famous.

Source | Domain News
Photo | Flickr

Verizon goes after cybersquatters

The cellular provider famous for its “Can you hear my now?” adverts is making itself heard. This week Verizon filed a number of lawsuits against cybersquatters.

Some of the domains involved are varizon.com, vierzon.com, and virazon.com. These clearly infringe upon Verizon’s trademark.

The company is demanding $100,000 per domain in addition to other damages. This includes any profits earned from the names and legal fees. Verizon is also asking that the cybersquatters pay for corrective advertising to remedy “any consumer confusion or misperceptions” that resulted from the use of domains.

I have a feeling Verizon will win its case, but I doubt their damage requests will be fulfilled. It will be hard to prove that any loss of profits and consumer confusion occurred, and my guess is the individuals concerned are unlikely to have $100,000.

Photo | Flickr

Scammers target .ch and .li owners

If you own a .ch (Switzerland) or .li (Lichtenstein) domain, watch out. SWITCH, the registry responsible for the two ccTLDs, has warned of a scam targeting registrants

So far victims of the scam seem to all be businesses. Con artists will email or call a firm offering to sell it an alternative spelling of their current domain for a grossly inflated price. The swindlers are hoping to take advantage of trademark owners worried about cybersquatting.

The good thing about this is Lichtenstein and Switzerland are both small enough that word about the fraud should spread relatively quickly.

A similar scam of sorts exists in the United States, where domain registrants will receive letters in the mail from less-than-ethical registrars stating that their domain needs to be renewed immediately. Of course, the name usually isn’t up for renewal and by paying the fee, you can end up transferring the name to the rogue registrar without realizing it.

Source | Domain News
Photo | Flickr

Yahoo seeks to get hands on Yahoo.tel

Internet giant Yahoo recently filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum, arguing that it has rights to Yahoo.tel. The domain was registered on March 23, 2009 by David Blanco of Oviedo, Spain.

Yahoo will likely win the dispute. Given the company’s vast web presence and many trademarks, how can the current owner justify his use of the name?

What Yahoo should be concerned with is why it didn’t register the name in the first place. The .tel TLD, like all other new extensions, mandated a sunrise period where trademark holders could register their names before the mainstream public. Obtaining the domain then rather than paying the National Arbitration Forum fees to get the name now would have saved the company quite a bit of money.

Source | Domain News
Photo | Flickr