Archive for December 2014

16 Year Old Domain Lost in UDRP.


According to the news from 1(1)on December 12th,, a domain name registered on April 20, 1998 has been ordered transferred to a trademark holder in a UDRP decision handed down by the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (“ADNDRC”).

Some of the language in the decision is troubling as is the failure of the panel to even consider or discuss the legal concept of latches due to the 16 year delay in taking action.

The Complainant is the TVB, Television Broadcasts Limited (listed on the main board of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited), commonly known as TVB, was established on 19 November 1967 and is the first wireless commercial television station in Hong Kong.

They own the domain name which was first registered in 1999.

“Headquarters in Hong Kong, TVB provides round-the-clock entertainment channels and news service to over 7 million Hong Kong viewers and operates an international licensing and distribution business.”

While the Respondents did not submit a formal Response to the Complaint but did sent an email to the panel, which the panel discusses below but did not treat as a response.

What the panel did not consider at all or even discuss, is the 16 year delay from the time the domain name was registered to the time the trademark holder “discovered” this domain name has been registered.

Laches is apparently not a term or concept that is used or understood in Asia or at least by this panelist.

The panelist did however accept the trademark holders argument that moving the domain name recently to Privacy was a huge indication of bad faith of the domain holder saying:

“Obviously, the First Respondent tried to use this means to hide its name from being disclosed to the public, which suggests a highly suspect motive. It is not the way a legitimate business would operate

Here is what the trademark holder had to say:

“TVB happened to become aware that an entity named “Shen, Ying-Wei (The Vacation Bacchic Studio)”, had registered the Disputed Domain Name on April, 20, 1998.

By conducting a WHOIS search, it was discovered that the First Respondent was located in Taoyuan County, Taiwan.

Apparently, the First Respondent is an organization or an individual located in Taiwan.

Furthermore, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name has been changed to a company named “PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC”, which provides domain name holders with a privacy service to conceal the registrant’s real name from the public.

Obviously, the First Respondent tried to use this means to hide its name from being disclosed to the public, which suggests a highly suspect motive. It is not the way a legitimate business would operate.”

In addition, TVB has already obtained the registry of (registered in 1997).

TVB obtained the trademark registrations of TVBS prior to the date of April 20, 1998 which the Respondent registered the domain name

“The Disputed Domain Name does not appear to be in use for any bona fide offering of goods or services or to have been established in anticipation for such use, and there is no indication that the Respondents were known by the name “TVBS” prior to the registration of the domain name.

Here is what the panelist had to say:

“The Panelist has carefully considered the representations contained in Ying-Wei “Gary” Shen’s 20 November 2014, reply email to the ADNDRC, and finds them to be misleading and false, particularly when viewed against the robust and highly persuasive documentary evidence adduced by the Complainant. Furthermore, the First Respondent’s assertion that it is not bound to comply with the URDP dispute resolution procedure, because the domain was registered on 20 April 1998, which was “before the [UDRP rules and] policy was adopted: August 26, 1999″, is without merit.”

The Registrar’s 14 November 2014 email to the ADNDRC expressly states: “We confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy applies to the domain name”. That this is true, and that this Panel has jurisdiction over this dispute, is apparent from the terms of the service agreement found on the Registrar’s public website, which reads (in relevant part):

“12. MODIFICATIONS TO AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, you agree during the term of this Agreement, that we may: (1) revise the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and/or (2) change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time. Any such revision or change will be binding and effective after posting of the revised Agreement or change to the service(s) on Network Solutions Websites, or upon notification to you by email or United States mail. You agree to periodically review our Websites, including the current version of this Agreement available on our Websites, to be aware of any such revisions. If you do not agree with any revision to the Agreement, you may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing us with notice. Notice of your tennination will be effective on receipt and processing by us. Any fees paid by you if you terminate your Agreement with us are nonrefundable, except as expressly noted otherwise in one or more of the Schedules to this Agreement, but you will not incur any additional fees. By continuing to use Network Solutions Services after any revision to this Agreement or change in service(s), you agree to abide by and be bound by any such revisions or changes. Weare not bound by nor should you rely on any representation by (i) any agent, representative or employee of any third party that you may use to apply for our services; or in (ii) information posted on our Website of a general informational nature. No employee, contractor, agent or representative of Network Solutions is authorized to alter or amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

22. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND. By applying for a Network Solutions service(s) through our online application process or otherwise, or by using the service(s) provided by Network Solutions under this Agreement, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Agreement and documents incorporated by reference”.

That is, upon registering the Disputed Domain Name, the First Respondent became bound by the terms of the (on line) service agreement with the Registrar. Pursuant to that agreement, the First Respondent agreed that the terms of the service agreement would be changed from time to time by the Registrar; that such changes would become binding on the First Respondent upon posting on the Network Solutions Websites; and that the First Respondent’s continuing use of the domain name would evidence the First Respondent’s agreement to be bound by such new or different terms.

Furthermore, the fact that the First Respondent employed the Second Respondent as its agent in relation to the Disputed Domain Name provides no defense. Paragraph 14 of the Registrar’s service agreement provides:

“14. AGENTS. You agree that, if your agent, (e.g., your PrimalY Contact or Account Administrative Contact, Intemet Service Provider, employee) purchased our service(s) on your behalf, you are nonetheless bound as a principal by all terms and conditions herein, including the domain name dispute policy. Your continued use of our services ratifies any unauthorized actions of your agent. By using your login name, account number or password, or otherwise purporting to act on your behalf, your agent certifies that he or she is authorized to apply for our services on your behalf, that he or she is authorized to bind you to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, that he or she has apprised you of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and that he or she is otherwise authorized to act on your behalf. In addition, you are responsible for any errors made by your agent”.

That is, even assuming that the First Respondent’s lack of awareness or understanding of its obligations under its service agreement with the Registrar resulted from some failure or defalcation on the part of its agent, the Second Respondent, this provides no defense to the First Respondent, who remains bound by the service agreement, including the obligation to be bound by the UDRP, as amended by the Registrar from time to time.

7. Decision

The Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the <



New Poll Says 25% Think Organic Co. Should Have .Organic Domain.But Only 396 Have Been Registered


According to the news from English.domain.cn1(1) on December 12th,.ORGANIC domain operator Afilias today announced the results of a poll in which “nearly 70% of respondents believe that some companies are misrepresenting themselves as “organic” to command a premium price, and 60% would like a reliable way to distinguish real organic providers online from the pretenders. That’s why almost 60% of respondents claimed they would be more inclined to visit a site on .ORGANIC, which is restricted to verified organic entities, than legacy .COM sites when searching for organic products.”

“The research showed the depth of confusion consumers feel when searching for organic products online: 43% of respondents acknowledge that they can’t easily differentiate who’s truly organic and who’s not when they are researching or shopping online; whereas only 5% claim they don’t have such a problem. 69% think companies should stop associating themselves with the term “organic” if they are not.

1 in 4 consumers believe that true organic companies and products SHOULD have a .ORGANIC web address, as only verified organic entities are allowed to have one.

Afilias commissioned independent research agency YouGov to undertake this research. Conducted in mid-November 2014, the research surveyed over 3,200 U.K. and U.S. Internet users (2,057 and 1,147 adults respectively). The findings were sampled and weighted to be nationally representative of each nation (adults aged 18+).”

Despite the results of the survey, as we sit today, there are only 396 domain names registered under .Organic according to


Binary Syllabification Domain– Sold Up To Nearly 400,000 Yuan


According to the news from on 1(1)December 12th,“教材” in Chinese) was auctioned for 39,9999 Yuan on a domestic transaction platform and the buyer is the well-known domain investor Zhenxuan Huang.


The Whois of

Based on the Whois information, was registered in 2000, and there was information changing on November 27th this year which was renewed to February in 2017. has the meaning of “教材、脚踩、浇菜、叫菜”which can be used for establishing education site,downloading textbook site,take-away site and so on. is said to be sold for hundreds of thousands of yuan

THURSDAY,11 DECEMBER 2014  Domain Forum of China

According to the news from Domain Forum of China on December 11th, the domain owner-Jianfeng Jin sold which has the meaning of “尿不湿” in Chinese suitable for diaper products. The special selling website of “尿布师” earlier before obtained millions and millions angel financing and they have enabled After the financing, the domain holder of has received lots of offers and it is estimated that these offers are all because of “尿不湿”. Additionally, Jianfeng Jin once also the holder of、 and he still possesses视频)、空间). sold up to nearly ¥1 million


According to the news from 1(1)on December 10th, earlier before two famous domain investors, Hangwei and Taotao joined hands to purchase “农”, “田”, “官” and other four valuable domain name, which attracted a great deal of attention and discussion. Today these two domain investors cooperate again in selling was registered in 1996. It is homophonic in Chinese to “爱要久(everlasting love)”, “我要酒(I want wine)” which can be used for setting up wine e-commerce platform or match-making website. Although we don’t know the exact transaction price, allegedly it is sold for ¥700,000.


Domain Name Stocks walloped so far in 2014

Most publicly traded domain name companies have had their stocks hit hard in 2014.


According to the news from 1(1)on December 9th,the broader markets are up big time this year, but there’s not much cheer at domain name companies that are publicly listed. With about a month left in the year, some publicly traded domain name companies will need a healthy rebound to end the year where they started. In fact, I count only three companies that are up this year, compared to 6 that are down (big time).

Here’s a look at the winners and losers in the stock market this year, as of the close of trading Wednesday.


Tucows (NADSAQ: TCX) shares started trading on the NASDAQ this year, and its stock has risen 26% from $13.95 to $17.63. Revenue growth has been driven mainly by the company’s Ting mobile phone offering.

Endurance International Group (NASDAQ: EIGI), which owns and a number of shared hosting companies, rose 21% from $14.01 to 16.94.

Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) was essentially flat, opening the year at $59.74 and closing before Thanksgiving at $60.07.


Centralnic (LSE AIM: CNIC) is down a whopping 63% from 98.0p to 36.0p (based on last trade before November 27). It runs the backend for a number of new top level domain names, as well as multiple third level domain names.

Marchex (NASDAQ: MCHX) is another domain company having a rough year, but it’s not because of problems in its domain business. Its click-to-call business lost business from a key customer and saw its stock drop like a rock. Shares opened the year at $8.59 and have plummeted 57% to $3.71 (NASDAQ: WWWW) has had a bad year, dropping 45% from $31.74 to $17.36. Its market cap has sunk below $900 million. Its slide started when Google announced its entry to the domain name registrar market. The slide continued with revenue misses, a decision to end a customer segment that shaved a lot of revenue off, and otherwise poor execution.

Rightside (NASDAQ: NAME) started trading August 4 after the spinoff from Demand Media. It hasn’t done well since then, but neither has Demand Media. Rightside shares are down 45% from $15.82 to $8.73.

Neustar (NYSE: NSR) has also lost 45% of its share value this year, thanks to the potential loss of a lucrative phone system contract. Shares opened at $49.75 and closed Wednesday at $27.43.

Minds + Machines (LSE AIM: MMX) started the year trading as Top Level Domain Holdings, and then switched to Minds + Machines when it began its active new TLD business. Shares are down 33% from 14.12p to 9.50p. Keep in mind that the company issued new shares this year, so its overall value isn’t down by a third.


Oops: Moniker account balances are apparently borked


According to the news from 1(1)on December 9th,incorrect balances shown on accounts dating back to October.

The hits keep on coming for Moniker…and its customers.

When the domain name registrar switched to a completely new registrar platform over the summer, it lost all previous invoices that customers used to be able to view within their account.

Customers got access to new invoices, and could see an up-to-date balance, but couldn’t see their transactions from before the platform switch.

Then, some time around October, it appears that customers’ balances got mucked up.

I was pretty sure that the balance in my account was $3xx after the transition. At least, that’s what I recall showing up on the balance after the transition. (I have no way of verifying that this was correct since the previous invoices are gone.)

But in early October, my account suddenly showed this:


Did Christmas come early? Or did Moniker realize it had made a mistake during the transition and I actually had more funds in my account than previously shown?

Neither of the above, apparently. It would seem that the updated balance in October was an error.

I logged in today to see:


That sucks. But at least I don’t have a negative balance. Multiple posters on a DNForum thread (membership required) say they are surprised to have negative balances at Moniker and are being told to “pay up”.


The Founder of Purchases

According to the news from 1(1)on December 9th, Xiaoyang, the founder of purchases the domain: from the domain invertor.
Xiaoyang purchases and enables the binary syllabificate domain– at¥6 figure’s price. is the meaning“咖啡”in Chinese, which has very specific indication and has certain commercial value. is very suitable for setting take-away coffee website, coffee bar and coffee information website. According to the Whois information, was registered in January 1999 and has been 15 years up to now.
The price of the domain related to coffee has always kept high profile. New gTLD was sold for ¥610000.00 and was used for establishing take-away coffee website before long. once also auctioned for¥850000.00


If You Want One More Its At $30K At With a Day To Go


According to the news from 1(1)on December 9th, Boca Raton’s own Ariana Grande has been burning up the music charts with the song “Problem” for most of the year.

If you have been living off the grid and haven’t’ heard the song or worse if you haven’t watched the video here is a little early Christmas present.

Anyway on the domain name front, is at auction at

The domain name auction closes tomorrow and bidding has already topped $30K with 224 bidders.

The good news is the domain auction is public so you can still join it even if you didn’t backorder the domain by clicking here.

The bad news is even at $30k the domain name hasn’t hit reserve.

For the record we don’t own the domain, we are not going to bid on the domain and have no financial interest if the domain sells or not, didn’t ask us to write about it and there is no check in the mail coming to us in any way shape or form.

I certainly would have one less problem if I didn’t have to disclose every time the fact that I have no financial interest in everything I write about but then what fun would that be?

Besides I had to work the line into the story anyway

On the other hand, Ariana or Iggy, we are more than happy to get any swag you want to throw our way.

Yes a Shameless plug.



ICANN 53 To Be Held in Buenos Aires

According to the news from 1(1)on December 9th,the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has recently picked Buenos Aires for its 53rd meeting.

Buenos Aires, Argentina was approved for ICANN’s 53rd meeting by the ICANN Board last week.

The meeting will be held 21-25 June,2015 .The venue has not yet been disclosed. However, ICANN may return to a previous venue, the Sheraton Hotel.

This is the third time the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has chosen Buenos Aires for one of its public meetings. The first meeting held in Buenos Aires was held in 2005 and the second one was held last year.