The domain world is reeling and rolling their eyes as, in a situation that some call an unsurprising screw-up, different panelists at the same dispute resolution organization have made different rulings on whether or not the same string pair–.CAM and .COM–are confusingly similar. Three different companies have applications in for .CAM, but only one of them has been prevented from moving forward:
ICANN Must Now Decide String Similarity Question
By Statton Hammock, Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs, Demand Media, August 20, 2013
“Yesterday, a decision on a string confusion objection was reached by a dispute resolution provider that resulted in a scenario that ICANN and the Applicant Guidebook had not addressed — conflicting opinions have been rendered by expert panelists ruling on the exact same pair of strings. One of our applications now hangs in the balance.”
However, when the String Similarity Panel placed the applications for .hotels and .hotels into a string similarity contention set, the ICANN Board denied the request for reconsideration, which may set a–perhaps untenable–precedent for NOT dealing with the .CAM/.COM split decision.
ICANN Denies Booking.com Request To Reconsider String Similarity Panel Ruling; Bad News On Cam Vs Com?
By Michael Berkens, August 22, 2013
“In turning down Booking.com request for reconsideration the ICANN Board appears to also have bad news for those that think the Board will step into settle the .Com Vs .Cam split decisions.”
It will be interesting to see how this instance turns out, and what precedents are set for the future.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago we posted on the news surrounding a “name collision” study and whether that was going to cause delays as ICANN seeks to ensure security and stability in the new TLDs. Andrew Allemann makes the case that ICANN should use some of its TLD-application windfall to create a name collision detection and notification system so that new TLD registries don’t have to.
ICANN needs to throw TLD applicants a bone on name collisions
By Andrew Allemann, August 20, 2013
“ICANN should have undertaken its study of the matter years ago. Now, over a year since accepting $185,000 a pop for applications, and well after many applicants have bulked up on staff to market their domains, ICANN has added a new requirement and a big delay.”
Not all TLD applicants are unhappy this week, though. Top Level Domain Holdings are simply delighted to have walked away from a private auction with cash-in-hand and two TLDs, and had an objection against a lucrative third dismissed. We would be delighted, too!
First Private Auction and .购物 Update
By Minds + Machines, Aug 20, 2013
“The directors of Top Level Domain Holdings (AIM: TLDH) are delighted to announce that the Company has secured the sole application rights for .fishing and .casa after winning last week’s private auctions for the two strings. The Company was outbid on .guide and .网址 (“web address” in Chinese). The cash the Company will receive from the winning bidders for .guide and .网址 (“web address” in Chinese), net of commissions payable to the auctioneer, will exceed the amounts to be paid by the Company for .fishing and .casa. Separately, the Company is delighted to report that the International Centre for Dispute Resolution… has dismissed the objection lodged against the Company’s application for .购物 (“shopping” in Chinese).”
Here’s a way to save money on your UDRPs: do your homework! If your dozens of different respondents are attempting to mask the fact that they are all in the same group, you may be able to consolidate your cases.
Seiko wins UDRP for 138 domains against 106 “respondents”
By Andrew Allemann, August 21, 2013
“Panel consolidates claim on basis that 106 respondents are actually just one group.”
However, the real way to save money is not to have to file a UDRP in the first place! Major brands make this mistake every day, but you don’t have to! Register your trademark and get the alerts!
Brand Protection Fail: This Weeks TM Domains Brands Let Drop & Get Registered Boeing; NCAA; ESPN Google AP & More
By Michael Berkens, August 17, 2013
“Its pretty interesting sitting on the sidelines every week seeing companies spending $1,500 a pop to file a UDRP on a single domain name (plus attorneys fees) on the same type of domain names that are dropping and can be picked up for $69 on a back order or sometimes even $10 on a registration. As always these are not even typo’s but pretty bang on domain names.”