Radix Announces Global Web Design Contest, F3.space

Radix, the world’s 3rd largest nTLD domain portfolio registry, today announced the launch of a global web design contest, F3.space. Through this contest, web designers, developers and existing customers are invited to submit their website on any of the 9 gTLDs operated by Radix, such as .ONLINE, .TECH, .SPACE, .STORE, .PRESS, .SITE, .WEBSITE, .HOST and .FUN. Submissions can be made on F3.space to compete for prizes worth USD 30,000. The contest will have weekly and monthly winners, chosen based on public votes as well as evaluation by the judges on the panel. This is an initiative to engage existing nTLD users as well as to promote the usage of nTLDs among the global web design community.

Speaking about the contest, Sandeep Ramchandani, VP and Business Head, Radix, said, “Radix is focused on engaging with end users through various initiatives. While we are actively working with the global startup community through the Startup League and the tech programmers through numerous hackathons, with F3.space we are focusing specifically on the web design community.” With the total prize money of USD 30,000, F3.space is one of the biggest design contests in the world.

With F3.space, Radix will not only engage participants, but also those in their social networks since winners will be chosen based on public votes in addition to evaluation by the judges. To make this initiative even bigger, Radix will also work with Registrars and invite their customers to participate in the contest.

The judges on the panel of F3.space are Chad Borlase, Group Creative Director, SapientRazorfish, Toronto; Laura Müller, UX Lead, MetaDesign, Berlin; and Hakarl Bee, Group Creative Director at RAPP, New York City. The submissions will be evaluated on three criteria — Form, Function and Flair (F3). The contest is open to anyone who has an existing website on any of Radix’s TLDs, as well as those who have an inclination towards web design, including small and medium sized agencies and freelancers. The winning designs will be showcased to an international community of designers, developers and creative thinkers, and users can vote for the designs they like the best.

Last year, Radix launched the Startup League, a startup-centric program to encourage the use of nTLDs among new businesses. Today, the Startup League has 100+ startups on board and 50+ partners from the global startup ecosystem. Radix has also been an active supporter of hackathons around the world since 2012. As a result, more than 5000 hackathon projects have been developed on Radix domains so far. F3.space is a program specifically to engage the design community. Initiatives like these are helping Radix to create end-user visibility and usage of nTLDs.

About Radix – Radix (Radix FZC) is a portfolio Registry for new domain extensions and has secured uncontested registry rights to .website, .press, .host, .space, .site, .tech, .online and .store. Radix is Asia’s largest new gTLD applicant, playing a substantial role in the global diversification of the Internet namespace. Learn More

Related topics: Domain Names, Registry Services, Top-Level Domains, Web

Article source: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170818_radix_announces_global_web_design_contest_f3space/

Is a New Set of Governance Mechanism Necessary for the New gTLDs?

In order to be able to reply to the question of whether a new set of governance mechanisms are necessary to regulate the new Global Top Level Domains (gTLDs), one should first consider how efficiently the current Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has performed and then move to the evaluation of the Implementations Recommendations Team (ITR) recommendations. In September 2008, an analysis of the opportunities and problems for trademark owners presented by the introduction of new gTLDs [1] was published in the Trademark World magazine.

That analysis identified several brand protection challenges such as the absence of required pre-launch rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), the problems of defensive registrations, and the unprecedented potential for cybersquatting [2]. According to Kristina Rosette [3] an Intellectual Property Constituency Representative to the ICANN’s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council and ex-member of the Implementation Recommendation Team, ICANN has made little advancement on the issue of trademark protection in the new gTLDs despite the efforts of numerous trademark owners, associations, and lawyers.

Issues with the UDRP

In February 2010, the ICANN GNSO council passed a resolution [4], requesting ICANN staff to draft an Issues Report [5] on the current state of the UDRP. According to that motion, the draft had to focus mainly on issues of:

— How insufficiently and unequally has the UDRP addressed the problems of cybersquatting;

— Whether the definition of the term ‘cybersquatting’ needed to be reviewed or updated in the existing UDRP language including a possible revision of the policy development process. In his book [6] ‘The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: domain names as second-class citizens in a mark-dominated world’, Dr. Komaitis has interestingly outlined some of the major issues related to the UDRP, which have commonly contributed to its procedural unfairness. Some of those issues [7] can be broken down to:

  • The panellists associated with the UDRP have mainly a trademark law background which is not sufficiently oriented to the multi-stakeholder approach;
  • The UDRP makes arbitrary use of precedent. One unique feature of the emerging arbitration process under the UDRP has been the development of its own jurisprudence. While most arbitration is done with little, if any, public disclosure, the publication of UDRP opinions on the Web, has led to a practice of citing back to previous panel decisions. Some decisions have used the previous cases with only the weight of persuasive authority, while others appear to view themselves as being bound by precedent. In several cases, panels have used opinions from previous cases as persuasive authority to help address a variety of procedural and substantive matters. For example, J.P. Morgan v. Resource Marketing (jpmorgan.org) D2000-0035 [8] was a dispute involving an American Complainant and an American Respondent. The Respondent’s reply was late and the Complainant argued for the inadmissibility of the late response (the Complainant cited Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson (talk-city.com) D2000-0009 [9] as precedent for this position).
  • The UDRP is based upon the assumption that all domain name registrations are potentially abusive and harmful without any distinction or assessment between actual harm and the likelihood of such harm. In practice, this is not always the case.
  • There is no authority responsible for the validation of the decisions that emerge from the UDRP panels.
  • The bad faith element is open to wide and discretionary, if not discriminatory, interpretations. Trademark attorneys were initially concerned by the UDRP’s badfaith use requirement because under US trademark law, “use” meant that the domain name had to be “used in commerce” [10]. Three of the four factors outlining bad faith do not require any use per se, at least as defined in common parlance, and many of the early decisions under the UDRP have similarly found bad faith in the absence of any traditional use of the domain, indeed even in the absence of an active website. For example, in the first case decided under the UDRP, World Wrestling Federation, Inc. v. Bosman (worldwrestlingfederation.com) D99-0001 [11], the Panel resolved that an offer to sell amounts to “use” of the domain name, even if that offer constitutes the Respondent’s only use of the name. In short, an offer alone may constitute “use” sufficient to merit a finding of bad faith — a finding cited as authority in numerous subsequent cases.

The UDRP promotes an inconsistent system, despite the fact that it is meant to be uniform. The worryingly high number of default cases requiring UDRP intervention can demark this [12]. At the same time the UDRP does not provide equal incentives to both parties. Given the fact that there is such speculation concerning the substantive and procedural deficiencies of the UDRP, many of these issues could have been addressed via a review process. However, many ICANN community members believed that this is not the best time to review the UDRP. WIPO’s Erik Wilbers [13] said “Irrespective of one’s views on its functioning, the UDRP must interoperate with other RPMs being developed for New gTLDs”

Enter the ITR Recommendations

In 2006, the ICANN Board officially authorised the expansion of the Root and the addition of new gTLDs. To support this process ICANN formed the IRT, which in return produced a report in 2009. A significant part of that program focused on what types of Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) should be in place for intellectual property holders and particularly for trademark owners. After several meetings, teleconferences and consultation with various interest groups the ITR came up with several draft recommendations for several proposed solutions consisting of the following potential mechanisms, to which they assigned high priority [14]:

  1. Trademark Clearinghouse,
  2. Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), and standardised pre-launch rights protection mechanisms;
  3. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS);
  4. Post-delegation dispute resolution mechanisms;
  5. Thick WHOIS requirements for new TLDs;
  6. Use of algorithms in string confusion review during initial evaluation.

Out of the above solutions the Internet, Intellectual Property and the trademark related communities have majorly shown concerns and reacted specifically to:

  • Trademark Clearinghouse (often referred as IP Clearinghouse) — started the trademark validation services [15] on 26 March 2013
  • Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) – The trademark Clearinghouse is charged with validating all data regarding the GPML application [16]. Once the Clearinghouse finishes with the validation and compiles the initial GPML, ICANN publishes it before the request for proposal or RPF issues. This publishing by ICANN is done beforehand so that there are no potential applicants trying to register a protected mark.
  • Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) — a rights protection mechanism that complements the existing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) by offering a lower-cost, faster path to relief for rights holders experiencing the most clear-cut cases of infringement.

Evaluating the ITR recommendations

The Trademark Clearinghouse

The IP Clearinghouse would be a centralised database with two principal functions:

  1. A central database for all new gTLD registries (and possibly registrars) to interact with, in relation to GPML, IP Claims, and URS; and
  2. Information repository for specific information collection and data validation services. Trademark owners would submit data about their trademark rights [17], and the IP Clearinghouse would authenticate that data.

It could then push the authenticated data to new gTLD registry operators, or those registry operators could pull the data to support pre-launch RPMs, the GPML, and the URS. The IRT intended the IP Clearinghouse to introduce efficiencies for trademark owners, new gTLD registries, and registrars. Most comments on the IRT Final Report either supported or did not object to the IP Clearinghouse recommendation [18].

It seems beneficial to have an organisation that operates to reduce the time and money [19] necessary for brand owners to register in and police the new TLD space. The IP Clearinghouse would be tasked with supporting applications such as the Watch Service, IP Claims Service, Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and Globally Protected Marks List. As a result, the IP Clearinghouse would not only require certain types and levels of expertise, but would also probably be a for-profit organisation, in such case the intriguing questions to ask would be:

  • How would such an organisation be able to provide low-cost mechanisms and demonstrate the proper level of expertise?
  • How would registries and registrars be indemnified for using the Clearinghouse?
  • What would be the source for any such indemnification, and how would it be funded?
  • What frequency of IP clearinghouse updates would registries need to check, daily or real time?
  • If a registry elects to use the IP Clearinghouse on an on-going basis and not just for pre-launch activities, how will the IP Clearinghouse support registry operations
  • without impacting Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or registry performance?
  • Will ICANN renegotiate all SLAs for query times to account for these processes?
  • What provisions will be made if use of the Clearinghouse causes registries to default on SLAs?
  • Would registries be required to send a query to a centralised database for every new registration request, potentially impacting registry and registrar operations as well the customer experience?
  • What would happen when the clearinghouse is not accessible?
  • Would new registrations have to cease? (Resulting in potentially significant consequences.)
  • What would the new role of relationships between registries, registrars and the Clearinghouse be? Would a registry have the relationship with ICANN, and ICANN have the relationship with the Clearinghouse?

The final report does not address the issue of archiving of the IP Clearinghouse data, as it will be handy that historical archives of the data be maintained and accessible. Also, specific requirements for this should be specified including a definition of access rights.

The Globally Protected Marks List proposals

The IRT recommended the creation of a GPML to provide additional protections for Globally Protected Marks (GPM) at the top and second levels. The IRT recommended strict eligibility criteria for the GPML:

  1. Ownership by the trademark owner of [number][20] of trademark registrations of national effect for the applied-for GPM that have issued in at least [number] countries across all five ICANN geographic regions with minimum number of registrations in each region;
  2. All trademark registrations must have issued by the date that GPML applications are first accepted and must be based on trademark registration applications filed by 1 November 2008; and
  3. Second-level domain for GPM’s principal online presence must be identical to GPM.

At the top level, the IRT recommended that applied-for gTLD strings be analysed for confusing similarity against GPMs, and that an application found to be an identical match or confusingly similar to a GPM would fail. A failed application could not proceed unless the applicant prevailed in an Initial Evaluation Reconsideration process, which would be available to all applications that failed the string confusion analysis. An applicant could prevail by demonstrating either that an applied-for TLD string is not sufficiently similar as to be likely, as a matter of probability and not mere possibility, to deceive or cause confusion or that it otherwise has legitimate rights to use the applied for TLD.

At the second level, the IRT recommended an initial block of second-level domain names that are an identical match to the GPM. However, a potential registrant of an initially blocked domain name could register the name, if it could show, using the criteria of the UDRP, that it had a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. Furthermore, some of the major problems that the GPML can raise are as follows:

  • The GPML will exorcise certain words from the DNS as it promotes protection of strings of characters, rather than protection of the mark [21] and its association with goods or services;
  • The GPML will create an alternative, new category of trademarks that do not fall within the famous/well-known category;
  • The GPML will include very esoteric scientific and technical terms that are currently used worldwide
  • The GPML overrides the fundamental legal principle that only courts can determine whether a mark qualifies as “famous”;
  • The GPML will help a trademark owners elevate the status of their trademarks to the protection of “text strings” not trademarks;
  • The GPML will not favour consumer protection and the same time it will violate a fundamental norm of Free Speech and Freedom of Expression via the prohibition on its ‘prior restraint’

The IRT developed the GPML in response to the most frequently proposed trademark protection solution “A-list”. However, the GPML was likely the most frequently criticised IRT recommendation [22]. Some criticised the GPML for being a “famous marks list”, some criticised it as being too political, some criticised it as likely to generate problems far out of proportion to the benefits, and some criticised it because the IRT Final Report did not provide definitive eligibility criteria.

The IRT had asked ICANN staff to conduct the quantitative research necessary to propose eligibility criteria because the IRT did not have time, and did not want to be accused of bias. Although ICANN staff agreed to do so, ICANN staff later acknowledged in late October 2009 that the research had not been completed [23].

According to Professor McCarthy, all assumptions need to be proven in order to justify extra protection. He suggests that consumers are not so easily confused and he presents the very interesting example of Amazon to show that, although Amazon can be considered a famous mark that does not imply that it is worthy of extra protection against all other uses. Amazon can mean different things (the great river basin of South America and Greek women warriors), which makes it not an arbitrary mark. If someone needs to know where to acquire Amazon food, Amazon drinks, Amazon Gyms, for example, this does not automatically mean that Amazon should be able to block its use on the basis of fame. The GPML will create even more problems for generic terms, such as TIME, PEOPLE, FORD, SHELL, and many others.

The Uniform Rapid Suspension System

The development of a low-cost and rapid takedown of an infringing domain is a top concern for brand owners. As a result, the URS is the most important proposal in the IRT’s report, which is based on a low cost pre-registration system, where trademarks can be placed on file for potential future disputes, and a system that facilitates filing against multiple registrants and multiple domain names simultaneously. However, the IRT maintains that the URS would preserve a registrant’s right to a hearing and/or appeal and would not replace other current options available, such as the UDRP or other litigation options. While the URS might not replace [24] the other enforcement options, the way that a URS decision could impact the outcomes of those other avenues should be taken under consideration during the further development of the URS.

  1. How can a trademark owner regain the domain name for his own use?
  2. Would the trademark owner have to file a UDRP in order to do so?
  3. How would the outcome of the UDRP be affected by the URS?

The URS should also include provisions that shift the burden of payment for the dispute process to the infringer. A system in which the party that loses the dispute is responsible for the cost of the dispute will create a deterrent against future abuse.

Domain suspension on ServerHold should be indefinite – in perhaps the most significant clarification that is needed to the IRT’s recommendations, if the URS does not provide for transfer, the suspension of the domain should at least last indefinitely, or so long as the successful Complainant continues to periodically reverify the validity of its own trademark rights (such as through the periodic reverification process for the trademark’s data in the IP Clearinghouse). Otherwise the URS will suffer from the same symptom that saddles trademark owners with an expensive portfolio of domain names that were acquired defensively to eliminate consumer confusion, but which have no business use and requires serial enforcement actions over the same domain as it expires and is released. Instead, if the complainant does not have the option of obtaining the transfer of the domain, it should at least be placed on indefinite ServerHold with no expiration.

The Respondent should bear the burden of proving it has legitimate rights in the Domain – By allowing the registrant merely to supply “evidence” that they have some legitimate right in the domain name, and by allowing the registrant to answer at any time during the registration, the IRT invites registrants to delay the deactivation or transfer of the name, by filing deficient or fabricated answers.

Examination factors (trademark examination) – The requirement that the complainant’s registered trademark must have been issued by a jurisdiction that conducts substantive examination of trademark applications should make clear that it only requires examination on absolute grounds (of descriptiveness, functionality, etc.). While the IRT points out that reliance on registrations that undergo no substantive evaluation resulted in gaming the system during, for example, the .eu launch, this concern does not require relative examination, and requiring it would, as an example, render one of the world’s most meaningful trademark registrations, a European Community Trade Mark (with an opposition system but no examination on relative grounds) an improper basis for a URS proceeding.

Impact of these RPMs on trademark law

The RPMs should enforce and protect existing trademark rights, but not create new rights to make an already complicated situation complex.

A trademark is limited to specific classes of goods and services, and the vast majority are not global marks but are also geographically circumscribed; therefore, the use of a trademark as or within, a domain name cannot automatically confer pre-emptive power as to all goods and services or all locales in the context of a global Internet. Setting limits on the scope of trademark rights in the DNS is particularly important where the trademarked word(s) is of the generic dictionary variety and overly expansive rights could stifle ecommerce competition and innovation.

It can be tricky and not clear to have the ‘mark + generic term’ proposal as creation of a new right beyond that conferred by trademark law, as well as degradation of the purpose of the TMC as an authoritative repository of trademarks meeting certain high standards for inclusion. In addition, because many potential combinations of marks plus generic terms would likely be non-infringing, such an expansion would result in an ordinate number of trademark claims service “false positive” warning notices to innocent potential registrants who, lacking sophistication in trademark law, would be unjustifiably deterred from completing the registration process. As a consequence of the GPML and impact of the clearinghouse, the following marks are not eligible [25] for inclusion in the Clearinghouse:

  1. Registered trademarks such as:
  • Trademark applications;
  • Trademarks registered by a city, state, province, or sub-national region;
  • International trademark applications made via the Madrid system unless the underlying basic trademark registration has national effect;
  • Registered marks that were subject to successful invalidation, cancellation, opposition, or rectification proceedings.
  • Court Validate Marks
  • Marks protected by statute or treaty
  • Reference

    [1] Kristina Rosette, ‘New gTLDs: An Opportunity or A Problem?’, Trademark World magazine (Sept. 2008) pg. 22

    [2] Ibid at pg. 23-24

    [3] Kristina Rosette, ‘ICANN and trademark protection in new GTLDs’, Trademark World magazine (Dec. 2009), available at http://goo.gl/GIVxS

    [4] ICANN GNSO Council resolution, Feb 2011, available at http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201102

    [5] Margie Milam, ‘Final GNSO Issue Report on The Current State of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (1st, ICANN, US 2011), available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf (hereafter UDRP-FIS)

    [6] K.V. Komaitis, The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated World (1st, Routledge, UK 2010)

    [7] K.V. Komaitis, ‘Still insisting on a UDRP Review’ (komaitis.org 2011) available at http://www.komaitis.org/1/category/registrant/1.html

    [8] J.P. Morgan Co., Incorporated and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Resource Marketing, D2000-0035 [2000] (WIPO-AMC), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0035.html

    [9] Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, D2000-0009 [2000] (WIPO-AMC) available at

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0009.html

    [10] Berkman Center for Internet and Society, ‘ANALYSIS OF KEY UDRP ISSUES’ (cyber.law.harvard.edu 2003) available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/analysis.html#bad

    [11] World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman [1999] (WIPO-AMC) available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/1999/d1999-0001.html

    [12] WIPO, ‘WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Statistics’ (wipo.int) available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/

    [13] See UDRP-FIS pg. 21

    [14] IRT, ‘IRT Final Report’, ICANN (2009), pg. 7, available at http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-finalreport-

    trademark-protection-29may09-en.pdf
    , (hereafter IRT-FR)

    [15] TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE (newgtlds.icann.org) available at

    http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse

    [16] Saassoln, ‘GPML’ (icannwiki.com 2011), available at http://icannwiki.com/index.php/GPML

    [17] See IRT-FR pg. 11

    [18] ICANN, ‘PROPOSED RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS – PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY (29 October to 26 November 2009)’ (archive.icann.org 2010) available at http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summaryanalysis-clearinghouse-urs-15feb10-en.pdf, hereafter ITR-PCS

    [19] See IRT-FR pg. 14

    [20] See IRT-FR pg. 17

    [21] Trademark Clearinghouse, ‘Trademark Clearinghouse Guidelines’ (trademark-clearinghouse.com 2013) available at http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/TMCH%20guidelines%20v1.1_0.pdf,

    [22] See IRT-PCS

    [23] See IRT-FR pg. 7

    [24] See ITR-FR pg. 25

    [25] Registered trademarks (trademark-clearinghouse.com) available at http://trademarkclearinghouse.com/content/registered-trademarks

    By Duksh K. Koonjoobeeharry, Team Lead, Open Source Geek, Internet Legal Research

    Related topics: Cybersquatting, DNS, Domain Names, ICANN, Intellectual Property, Internet Governance, Law, Policy Regulation, Registry Services, Top-Level Domains, UDRP

    Article source: http://www.circleid.com/posts/201708010_is_a_new_set_of_governance_necessary_for_the_new_gtlds/

    Airbnb evicts phisher

    Airbnb has recovered an infringing domain that was filed in bad faith to phish information from legitimate customers.

    In a UDRP dispute heard at the World IP Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, home hopping app Airbnb challenged the legitimacy of airbnbnow.com, contending that it incorporated the entirety of its trademark, with the addition of ‘now’ doing nothing to “diminish the substantial identity between the trademark and the disputed domain name”.

    The website hosted on the disputed domain also mimicked the official Airbnb website, using the Airbnb logo and corporate colours to invite “visitors to enter their email addresses to ‘[g]et the best rent value possible’”.

    Sole panellist Timothy Casey agreed that this was evidence enough of infringement. He said: “The incorporation of a gTLD suffix and the word ‘now’ do nothing to further distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark”.

    “The respondent’s website does nothing to create any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because its operation as a phishing website or a competitive service offering to the complainant’s services, or both, do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.”

    Finally, Casey settled on the reasoning that the website’s time of registration, wording, logos and colour scheme clearly indicated bad faith.

    Article source: http://www.ipprotheinternet.com/ipprotheinternetnews/article.php?article_id=5577

    Nigeria to Surpass 100000 Domain Name Registration By November

    Sunday Folayan
    President of NiRA, Mr. Sunday Folayan

    Emma Okonji

    There are indications that Nigeria will surpass the 100,000 mark domain name registration between October and November this year, following the month-on-month increase in the .ng domain name registration across the country.

    As at June this year, Nigeria recorded 90,696 .ng domain name registrations, but the recent figures released by the Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA), the body responsible for the country’s domain name registration and control, shows that Nigeria recorded additional 4,363 registrations in July, while the renewal for the same month was 2,143.

    According to NiRA President, Revd Sunday Folayan, the domain count for the Nigerian Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD), had continued to make impressive gains, month-on-month.

    “Going by the impressive monthly increase, which we can attribute to the increase in the number of accredited registrars, coupled with the preparations on ground to host the AfriNIC-27 meeting in November 2017, we are optimistic that between October and November this year, Nigeria will surpass the 100,000 mark registration.
    “We are also convinced that the various workshops and conferences held within and outside the country, designed to push the .ng adoption, will also help to surpass the 100,000 mark,” Folayan said.

    The .ng domain count continues to make impressive gains on monthly basis and it is heart-warming that the number of domains in the registry continues to grow in excess of 2,000 domains monthly. This is due to the hard work of the Registrars and the Resellers, in making sure that .ng continues to be the domain of choice for all Nigerians, Folayan added.

    “At the current growth rate, the number of active .ng domains will surpass the 100,000 mark between October and November 2017. It is a milestone that we will celebrate, and is worthy of being celebrated.
    “We need to get many more people on board, but some Nigerians still live in denial. They claim that the Nigerian string is too long, and sometimes expensive, but this is not true.

    Government and Nigerian businesses should be proud to fly our identity, the .ng domain name,” Folayan advised.
    According to him, part of the planned agenda for AFRINIC-27 is to call on the international community to increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet in developing countries. There will also be a strong call for the implementation of IPv6 in Africa.

    In technical parlance, domain name which could be ccTLD or generic top level domain (gTLD) is the identity of individuals and organisations in cyberspace. For anyone to have access to internet activities privately, the individual must register with a domain name that represents a country. For instance, Nigeria’s domain name in cyberspace has the suffix .ng, Canada is .ca, South Africa is .za, United Kingdom is .co.uk, among others.


    Article source: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/08/10/nigeria-to-surpass-100000-domain-name-registration-by-november/

    DotBrand expansion continues with launch of .radio, .wine and .insure

    New domain name extensions are just some of hundreds of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) to open for registration. Novagraaf offers a complimentary early warning service to help trademark owners keep on top of domain launches and registration deadlines.

    Why the new gTLDs? Most organisations are familiar with generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) extensions, such as .com, .org and .net. However, in 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) offered companies the opportunity to apply to register and run new gTLD extensions. Many new extensions have since been launched with others now being opened for registration.

    What does it mean for brand owners? These new TLDs cover cities, regions and countries (such as .Brussels and .uk), sports (such as .yoga and .cricket), retail outlets (such as .store and .pharmacy), and many other commercially relevant terms (not least .sucks). Brand owners need to consider which of these new domain names may offer opportunities (or potential dangers) to their businesses, and ensure that their trademarks are registered or protected on those new domains.

    Managing key deadlines With so many gTLDs opening for registration each month, it can be a challenge for brand owners to keep track of all the new TLD launches and their corresponding deadlines. For that reason, Novagraaf has developed an early warning service to notify brand owners of upcoming registrations and deadlines (subscribe for free here).

    Trademark owners who have registered their brands at the Trademark ClearingHouse (TMCH) should pay particular attention to ‘Sunrise Periods’, in which they will have the opportunity to register domain names containing their trademarks before registration is open to all.

    In order not to miss a Sunrise deadline, Novagraaf can help you to register your trademarks at the TMCH. Please get in touch for further information using the contact form above.

    .Basketball, .Radio and .Boston The Sunrise Periods for these three new gTLDs expire this month. Open registration for .insure, .luxury, .paris, .wine, .cars and .pizza are already underway.

    If any of these gTLDs is potentially of interest to you, then get in touch to discuss your strategy for registration. More TLDs will be announced shortly so, even if these first domains are not of interest, it is important to start considering your approach to brand protection now. 

    Article source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eaab2e08-11c1-4ef3-b22a-c34aace016fd

    Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) Experiences Lighter than Usual Trading Volume

    1 shares changed hands by the end of trading on Tuesday. Volume was down 100.00% under the stocks average daily volume.

    There has been some selling insider activity on Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) recently. E. David Panos, Director disclosed the sale of 1,014 shares of (NAME). The shares were purchased at an average price of $9.18. The Director now owns $294,908 of the stock according to the SEC filing.

    Here are a few additional firms who have increased or decreased their stake in (NAME). As of the end of the quarter Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa had bought 1,197 shares growing its stake by 1,129.2%. The value of the investment in (NAME) increased from $1,000 to $13,000 increasing 1,200.0% since the last quarter. As of quarter end Bank Of NEW York Mellon Corp had disposed of a total of 197 shares trimming its position 100.0%. The value in dollars went from $2,000 to $0 a change of $2,000 for the reporting period.

    Rhumbline Advisers grew its investment by buying 1,085 shares an increase of 9.1% in the quarter. Rhumbline Advisers controls 12,951 shares worth $138,000. The total value of its holdings increased 16.9%. As of quarter end Spark Investment Management LLC had disposed of a total of 24,411 shares trimming its holdings by 66.0%. The value of the investment in Rightside Group, Ltd. went from $367,000 to $133,000 a change of 63.8% quarter over quarter.

    On June 15 the company was rated “Neutral” according to a B. Riley report down from the previous “Buy” rating. On February 17 B. Riley left the stock rating at “Buy” and moved down the price target to $12.00 from $15.00.

    November 10 investment analysts at Deutsche Bank kept the company rating at “Hold” but moved down the price target from $8.00 to $7.00. On May 11 analysts at Deutsche Bank initiated coverage on the stock giving it an initial rating of “Hold” and projecting a price target of $8.00.

    The company is now unchanged from yesterday’s close of $10.61. Shares last traded at $10.61 barely above the 50 day moving average of $10.59 and which is marginally over the 200 day moving average of $9.50. The 50 day moving average went up by +0.23% and the 200 day average was up $1.11.

    Rightside Group, Ltd., launched on July 11, 2013, is a provider of domain name services that enable businesses and consumers to find, establish and maintain their digital address. The Company is a registrar, offering domain name registration and other related services to resellers and directly to domain name registrants. The Company provides infrastructure services through its eNom brand. Through its retail brands, including Name.com, the Company directly offers domain name registration services to over 320,000 customers. The Company has over 16.5 million domain names under management. The Company is a domain name registry with a portfolio of over 40 generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) acquired through Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s expansion of new gTLDs (the New gTLD Program). It has launched all of its gTLDs, including .NEWS, .LIVE, and .FAMILY, into general availability in the marketplace. Its registry services business builds a distribution network of over 125 ICANN accredited registrars, including GoDaddy, eNom and Name.com, as well as other complementary distribution partners, such as Website builders and e-mail service providers, that offer its gTLD domain names to businesses and consumers..

    Article source: http://www.modernreaders.com/rightside-group-ltd-nasdaqname-experiences-lighter-than-usual-trading-volume/60513/larry-kramer

    Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) Experiences Lighter than …

    Trading was light with 1 shares changing hands on Tuesday. Volume was down 100.00% under the stocks average daily volume.

    There has been some selling insider activity on Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) recently. Director E. David Panos sold 1,014 shares at an average price of $9.18 on May 25th. That brings Panos’s holdings to $294,908 as reported to the SEC.

    These funds have also shifted positions in (NAME). Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa bolstered its ownership by buying 1,197 shares an increase of 1,129.2% from 03/31/2017 to 06/30/2017. Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa currently owns 1,303 shares valued at $13,000. The value of the position overall is up by 1,200.0%. As of quarter end Bank Of NEW York Mellon Corp had disposed of a total of 197 shares trimming its position 100.0%. The value of the company’s investment in Rightside Group, Ltd. went from $2,000 to $0 a change of 100.0% since the last quarter.

    Rhumbline Advisers added to its investment by buying 1,085 shares an increase of 9.1% as of 06/30/2017. Rhumbline Advisers now holds 12,951 shares worth $138,000. The total value of its holdings increased 16.9%. Spark Investment Management LLC downsized its holdings by selling 24,411 shares a decrease of 66.0% in the quarter. Spark Investment Management LLC claims 12,600 shares with a value of $133,000. The value of the position overall is down by 63.8%.

    On June 15 the company was rated “Neutral” in a report from B. Riley down from the previous “Buy” rating. February 17 investment analysts at B. Riley made no change to the company rating of “Buy” and lowered the price target to $12.00 from $15.00.

    On November 10 Deutsche Bank held the company rating at “Hold” and moved down the price target from $8.00 to $7.00. Equity analyst Deutsche Bank added the stock to its research portfolio setting a rating of “Hold” and a price target of $8.00.

    The company is now unchanged by % since yesterday’s close of $10.61. Shares are trading at $10.61 which is just a bit higher than $10.59, the 50 day moving average and which is marginally over the 200 day moving average of $9.50. The 50 day moving average went up by +0.23% and the 200 day average went up by +11.69%.

    Rightside Group, Ltd., launched on July 11, 2013, is a provider of domain name services that enable businesses and consumers to find, establish and maintain their digital address. The Company is a registrar, offering domain name registration and other related services to resellers and directly to domain name registrants. The Company provides infrastructure services through its eNom brand. Through its retail brands, including Name.com, the Company directly offers domain name registration services to over 320,000 customers. The Company has over 16.5 million domain names under management. The Company is a domain name registry with a portfolio of over 40 generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) acquired through Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s expansion of new gTLDs (the New gTLD Program). It has launched all of its gTLDs, including .NEWS, .LIVE, and .FAMILY, into general availability in the marketplace. Its registry services business builds a distribution network of over 125 ICANN accredited registrars, including GoDaddy, eNom and Name.com, as well as other complementary distribution partners, such as Website builders and e-mail service providers, that offer its gTLD domain names to businesses and consumers..

    Article source: https://www.hugopress.com/rightside-group-ltd-nasdaqname-experiences-lighter-than-average-trading-volume/652960

    Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) Experiences Lighter than Average Trading Volume

    Trading was light with 1 shares changing hands on Tuesday. Volume was down 100.00% under the stocks average daily volume.

    There has been some selling insider activity on Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) recently. Director E. David Panos sold 1,014 shares at an average price of $9.18 on May 25th. That brings Panos’s holdings to $294,908 as reported to the SEC.

    These funds have also shifted positions in (NAME). Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa bolstered its ownership by buying 1,197 shares an increase of 1,129.2% from 03/31/2017 to 06/30/2017. Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa currently owns 1,303 shares valued at $13,000. The value of the position overall is up by 1,200.0%. As of quarter end Bank Of NEW York Mellon Corp had disposed of a total of 197 shares trimming its position 100.0%. The value of the company’s investment in Rightside Group, Ltd. went from $2,000 to $0 a change of 100.0% since the last quarter.

    Rhumbline Advisers added to its investment by buying 1,085 shares an increase of 9.1% as of 06/30/2017. Rhumbline Advisers now holds 12,951 shares worth $138,000. The total value of its holdings increased 16.9%. Spark Investment Management LLC downsized its holdings by selling 24,411 shares a decrease of 66.0% in the quarter. Spark Investment Management LLC claims 12,600 shares with a value of $133,000. The value of the position overall is down by 63.8%.

    On June 15 the company was rated “Neutral” in a report from B. Riley down from the previous “Buy” rating. February 17 investment analysts at B. Riley made no change to the company rating of “Buy” and lowered the price target to $12.00 from $15.00.

    On November 10 Deutsche Bank held the company rating at “Hold” and moved down the price target from $8.00 to $7.00. Equity analyst Deutsche Bank added the stock to its research portfolio setting a rating of “Hold” and a price target of $8.00.

    The company is now unchanged by % since yesterday’s close of $10.61. Shares are trading at $10.61 which is just a bit higher than $10.59, the 50 day moving average and which is marginally over the 200 day moving average of $9.50. The 50 day moving average went up by +0.23% and the 200 day average went up by +11.69%.

    Rightside Group, Ltd., launched on July 11, 2013, is a provider of domain name services that enable businesses and consumers to find, establish and maintain their digital address. The Company is a registrar, offering domain name registration and other related services to resellers and directly to domain name registrants. The Company provides infrastructure services through its eNom brand. Through its retail brands, including Name.com, the Company directly offers domain name registration services to over 320,000 customers. The Company has over 16.5 million domain names under management. The Company is a domain name registry with a portfolio of over 40 generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) acquired through Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s expansion of new gTLDs (the New gTLD Program). It has launched all of its gTLDs, including .NEWS, .LIVE, and .FAMILY, into general availability in the marketplace. Its registry services business builds a distribution network of over 125 ICANN accredited registrars, including GoDaddy, eNom and Name.com, as well as other complementary distribution partners, such as Website builders and e-mail service providers, that offer its gTLD domain names to businesses and consumers..

    Article source: https://www.hugopress.com/rightside-group-ltd-nasdaqname-experiences-lighter-than-average-trading-volume/652960

    Opening Day Photos and Highlights from the Inaugural NameSummit Conference in New York City

    Above:
    After NameSummit Co-Founders
    Steven Kaziyev and Jason
    Schaeffer welcomed attendees
    to their first conference in
    New York, Brett Napoli from
    Ambition
    Insight
    took the
    stage in the first business
    session – Taking Focused
    Action: Strategies to Grow
    Your Internet Presence Today
    .
    Brett covered all of the bases
    with respect to 
    successfully creating,
    managing and distributing your
    content online.

    Below:
    The weather outside was
    frightful but by noon the Hilton
    ballroom
    was nearly full
    after many New Yorkers braved
    the elements to join attendees
    who had flown in from around
    the country for NameSummit.

    Above:
    In the next session SEMPO
    Research VP Marc Engelsman
    (left) and Chairman Mike
    Grehan
    give attendees
    insight into Understanding
    the Need for Integrating
    Content and Intent Marketing
    .

    Below:
    While the scope of NameSummit
    goes well beyond domain
    names alone, plenty of major
    league domain investors could
    be spotted in the audience
    including industry pioneer Larry
    Fischer
    (GetYourDomain.com)

    Above:
    Those interested in leveraging
    the power of video were able
    to learn from one of the best
    when master Author, Educator
    and Content Creator Roberto
    Blake
    took the
    stage to provide tips on Leveraging
    YouTube – Understand What It
    Takes to Thrive
    .

    Below:
    NameSummit scored a
    coup by landing national TV
    commentator, author and
    attorney Lisa
    Bloom
    as their
    featured speaker to start the
    afternoon session Monday. It
    no doubt helped that one of
    the most well-known figures in
    the domain industry (and the
    moderator at NameSummit) is
    Lisa’s husband Braden
    Pollock
    ! Lisa’s
    topic was Protecting
    Your Number One Asset – Your
    Personal Brand
    . She
    also talked about the widely
    heralded work her firm has
    done, especially on behalf of
    women who have been subjected
    to abuse or discrimination
    (very often working pro bono
    for causes she believes in).
    Her well received talk, in
    front of the largest audience
    of the day, had an especially
    touching moment when a female
    attendee stood up and,
    weeping, thanked Lisa for the
    extraordinary help she had
    given her. 

    Above:
    In the next afternoon session .CLUB
    Chief Marketing Officer Jeff
    Sass
    captured immediate
    attention – and that was just
    appreciation for the title
    of his talk – Naming You
    Startup? Stop Drppng Vwls
    Making Sh*t Up!
    Fortunately
    Jeff’s talk was equally
    creative and informative, no
    doubt winning more fans for
    .CLUB, a mission that has
    taken him all over the world
    since the new gTLD was
    founded.

    Below:
    At mid-afternoon the subject
    changed to Making the
    Most of Digital Marketing with
    Google
    with two well
    qualified experts covering the
    topic in depth – Google Agency
    Development Manager Timothy
    Jordan
    (left) and
    Michael Venezia
    , Digital
    Marketing Director for Cool
    Nerds.

    Above:
    Conference Director Jodi
    Chamberlain
    (32Events.com)
    added a special member to her
    team for NameSummit, her son Noah!
    With the early start this
    young man is getting we may be
    looking at another Frank
    Schilling
    here!

    Below:
    Back on stage, the next panel
    tackled Creating Brand
    Equity Through Digital
    Marketing
    . Left to
    right are moderator Braden
    Pollock
    , Michael Melen
    (Co-Founder and COO at
    SmartSites, and Alex Melen
    (Co-Founder and CEO at
    SmartSites) and You Tube guru Roberto
    Blake
    (RobertoBlake.com).

    Above:
    The new .NYC domain
    extension was a must cover
    subject for New York based NameSummit.
    This panel covered the new
    gTLD inside out. Left to right
    are Lori Anne Wardi (Vice
    President at Neustar, the
    administrator of the .NYC
    Registry), John Colascione
    (CEO at LongIsland.com),
    Art Malkov
    (Co-Founder
    Digital Director at
    Souvenirs.NYC and Silicon.NYC)
    and NameSummit Co-Founder Steven
    Kaziyev
    (NewYorkMedia.com).

    Below:
    These days everyone
    understands the importance of social
    media
    outreach but not
    necessarily how to do it
    successfully. That was covered
    in the next session – Social
    Media Management and
    Monetization Across Platforms
    .
    It featured (left to right)
    moderator Braden Pollock,
    Gerard Adams (The Millennial
    Mentor), Ryan Malone (Senior
    Manager for Sales/Operations
    at Likeable Local) and David
    Zaretsky
    (Co-Founder, CEO
    Chief Scientist at Snips
    Media).

    Above:
    At 5pm a day closing Cocktail
    Party
    got underway with
    the celebrants including (left
    to right) Steven Kaziyev
    (NameSummit Co-Founder), Ilze
    Kaulins-Plaskacz
    (ExcellentDomains.ca)
    and Steven’s lovely wife Zhanna
    Shiman
    .

    Below:
    While the cocktail hour had
    started, the business day still
    wasn’t over
    as some
    special sessions ran
    concurrently including Rob
    Monster’s
    talk about
    Smart Cities – a Smarter Way
    to Do Business – Local First
    .
    Rob is the CEO at both Epik.com
    and Digital
    Town
    .

    In
    other sessions that ran
    concurrently with cocktails,
    Loren Stocker
    (TollFreeMarket.com)
    talked about Business
    Texting – the Next Wave of
    Communication
    , and Geoffrey
    Gonzalez
    (Senior Director
    Sales at Natcom Global) went
    over The Route
    to Monetization via Evergreen
    Shirt Form Video
    and
    the folks from FOWNDERS
    were there to provide personal
    coaching.

    Last
    but certainly not least, NameSummit
    Co-Producer Ari Goldberger

    (left) took the stage to
    propose a toast to his
    ESQwire.com
    colleague –
    conference Co-Founder Jason
    Schaeffer
    (right) and
    Jason’s fellow Co-Founder Steven
    Kaziyev
    , for the
    remarkable job they did in
    putting this show together in
    an extraordinarily short
    period of time (the show was
    announced just four
    months ago
    when we
    broke the news).

    As
    I write this, the second and
    final day of NameSummit is
    just getting underway. I will
    have all of the closing day
    photos and highlights for you
    in my next post from New York

    Article source: http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2017/dailyposts/20170808.htm

    dotAfrica domains available in South African currency

    dotafricaBy MTHULISI SIBANDA
    JOHANNESBURG, (CAJ News) – SOUTH Africans can now register dotAfrica (.africa) domain names in their own currency after the country’s accredited registrar unveiled its pricing in Rand.Standard domain names areR350(US$26), thereafter, the annual domain renewal fee will be R250 per annum at Domains.co.za.
    The .africa generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) was released during the General Availability Phase on a first-come, first-served basis to the general public early July but until now, the pricing from the registry has been considered costly.
    However, costs have dropped and .Africa domains are now see as more affordable for small and medium enterprises seeking to purchase and use .africa domains and grow their businesses into African markets.
    Wayne Diamond, Chief Executive Officer of Domains.co.za, said as most countries in Africa did not have automated domain registration systems, domain registrations usually defaulted to the international .com TLD which is United States-based.
    He said the new .africa gTLD was designed to promote the continent’s
    entrepreneurial spirit going forward and enhance the economic community of
    Africa and support its growth.
    With Africa touted as the world’s fastest growing economic marketplace,
    future business growth should be aimed firmly at this promising continent,
    the executive said.
    He said business eager to positively impact the African marketplace could
    now engage from a domain name foundation that advertises their patriotic
    stance by registering their company, brand or trademark with a .Africa
    domain name.
    “.africa now gives us an opportunity to encourage not only South African,
    but other African countries’ business owners to unite under one ‘continental-brand’ domain (.Africa) and lead the drive toward stating
    Africa’s economic standpoint to the rest of the world,” Diamond said.
    He said securing one’s chosen .africa domain as soon as possible was also
    the best way of preventing intellectual property disputes and potential
    attempts at online fraud.
    Hailed as a “truly African initiative established by Africans for Africa
    and the world”, .africa is anticipated to bring the continent together as
    an internet community under one umbrella allowing e-commerce, technology
    and infrastructure to flourish.
    – CAJ News

    Short URL: http://cajnewsafrica.com/?p=21668







    Posted by
    on Aug 7 2017. Filed under Featured, Technology.
    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
    You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

    Article source: http://cajnewsafrica.com/2017/08/07/dotafrica-domains-available-in-south-african-currency/

    Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) Experiences Lighter than …

    1 shares changed hands by the end of trading on Tuesday. Volume was down 100.00% under the stocks average daily volume.

    There has been some selling insider activity on Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME) recently. E. David Panos, Director disclosed the sale of 1,014 shares of (NAME). The shares were purchased at an average price of $9.18. The Director now owns $294,908 of the stock according to the SEC filing.

    Here are a few additional firms who have increased or decreased their stake in (NAME). As of the end of the quarter Bnp Paribas Arbitrage, Sa had bought 1,197 shares growing its stake by 1,129.2%. The value of the investment in (NAME) increased from $1,000 to $13,000 increasing 1,200.0% since the last quarter. As of quarter end Bank Of NEW York Mellon Corp had disposed of a total of 197 shares trimming its position 100.0%. The value in dollars went from $2,000 to $0 a change of $2,000 for the reporting period.

    Rhumbline Advisers grew its investment by buying 1,085 shares an increase of 9.1% in the quarter. Rhumbline Advisers controls 12,951 shares worth $138,000. The total value of its holdings increased 16.9%. As of quarter end Spark Investment Management LLC had disposed of a total of 24,411 shares trimming its holdings by 66.0%. The value of the investment in Rightside Group, Ltd. went from $367,000 to $133,000 a change of 63.8% quarter over quarter.

    On June 15 the company was rated “Neutral” according to a B. Riley report down from the previous “Buy” rating. On February 17 B. Riley left the stock rating at “Buy” and moved down the price target to $12.00 from $15.00.

    November 10 investment analysts at Deutsche Bank kept the company rating at “Hold” but moved down the price target from $8.00 to $7.00. On May 11 analysts at Deutsche Bank initiated coverage on the stock giving it an initial rating of “Hold” and projecting a price target of $8.00.

    The company is now unchanged from yesterday’s close of $10.61. Shares last traded at $10.61 barely above the 50 day moving average of $10.59 and which is marginally over the 200 day moving average of $9.50. The 50 day moving average went up by +0.23% and the 200 day average was up $1.11.

    Rightside Group, Ltd., launched on July 11, 2013, is a provider of domain name services that enable businesses and consumers to find, establish and maintain their digital address. The Company is a registrar, offering domain name registration and other related services to resellers and directly to domain name registrants. The Company provides infrastructure services through its eNom brand. Through its retail brands, including Name.com, the Company directly offers domain name registration services to over 320,000 customers. The Company has over 16.5 million domain names under management. The Company is a domain name registry with a portfolio of over 40 generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) acquired through Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s expansion of new gTLDs (the New gTLD Program). It has launched all of its gTLDs, including .NEWS, .LIVE, and .FAMILY, into general availability in the marketplace. Its registry services business builds a distribution network of over 125 ICANN accredited registrars, including GoDaddy, eNom and Name.com, as well as other complementary distribution partners, such as Website builders and e-mail service providers, that offer its gTLD domain names to businesses and consumers..

    Article source: http://www.modernreaders.com/rightside-group-ltd-nasdaqname-experiences-lighter-than-usual-trading-volume/60513/larry-kramer

    .Africa domain pricing drops

    ‘;

    winimg.document.writeln(doc);
    winimg.document.close();
    }

    //]]

    li>ul,.container,#coinslid {background-color:#ffffff}
    ul#serinfo-nav{border-color:#ffffff !important}
    .body2,.header_scroll,.headbg,.header_noslide,#footer,#rightsidebar,#navigation{background-color:#404040}
    #nav li a,.nav>li>a,.nav>li>a{border-color:#404040}
    #serinfo,#serinfo-nav li.current{background-color:#f9f9f9}
    .overrating,#sidebar p input[type=submit],span.ribbon,a#triggernav,a#triggernav-sec,a.fromhome,.imgwrap,a.mainbutton,a.itembutton,.page-numbers.current,a.comment-reply-link,#submit,#comments .navigation a,.tagssingle a,.contact-form .submit,.intro,li.main h2,.plan-bottom a,.scrollTo_top a,.gallery-item, submit{background-color:#EC9D3A}
    a.moreposts{color:#EC9D3A !important}
    body{background-color:#fff}
    h2.widget{border-color:#fff !important}
    .body1 a, a:link, a:visited,.nav li ul li a{color:#2e372f}
    span>a.moreposts,ul#serinfo-nav li a{color:#2e372f !important}
    a:hover,.body1 a:hover,#serinfo a:hover,.nav>li.sfHover>a,.nav>li.current-menu-item>a,#serinfo-nav li.current a,#sec-nav>li.current-menu-item>a,ul#tabsmall>li.ui-tabs-selected>a.sidnav{color:#ec9c3a !important}
    .nav>li>a:hover,.nav>li.current-menu-ancestor>a,.nav>li.current-menu-item>a,.nav>li.sfHover>a,.nav>li.current-menu-item>a{border-bottom-color:#ec9c3a !important}
    .body2 a,a.body2 {color:#fff}

    .body2 a:hover,p.body2 a:hover{color:#EC9D3A!important}
    #coinslid,.archivepost li,#comments,#header,#sec-navigation,#core_bg,.seccol li,.teaser,.meta,.etabs,.tab,.widgetflexslider,.widgetcol,.widgetcol_small,#sec-nav>li>a,ul#serinfo,#serinfo-nav li.current,#hometab,#navigation,#sidebar h2,.ad300,.searchformhead input.s,.searchform input.s,.nav>li>ul,#main-nav>li,.nav li ul li a,.pagination,input, textarea,input checkbox,input radio,select, file{border-color:#ededed !important}
    body,#sec-nav,input, textarea,input checkbox,input radio,select, file,h3.sd-title {font:200 15px/2.0em Arial, sans-serif;color:#545454}
    h2.ads{color:#545454}
    .body2 {font:200 14px/2.0em Arial, sans-serif;color:#fff}
    .body2 h2,.body2 h3,.tickerwrap>span {color:#fff !important}
    .intro h1,.intro h1 a,a.itembutton,a.mainbutton,.page-numbers.current{color:}
    h1 {font:900 25px/1.5em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#2e373f}#block ul li h2 {font-family:”Montserrat”, sans-serif}h2 {font:900 16px/1.2em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#3d3d3d}h2.post {font:900 28px/1.2em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#ec9d3d}#sidebar h2 {color:#ec9d3d}h3,h3#reply-title,#respond h3,.comment-author cite{font:400 15px/1.3em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#222222 !important}a.mainbutton,a.itembutton,.page-numbers.current,a.comment-reply-link {font-family:”Montserrat”, sans-serif !important}h4 {font:400 13px/1.5em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#222222}h5,.nav>li>a>span.walker,p.meta,.meta a {font:400 10px/1.5em Tahoma, Geneva, Verdana, sans-serif;color:#878787}h6 {font:400 10px/1.5em Tahoma, Geneva, Verdana, sans-serif;color:#878787}
    #nav li a,.nav>li>a,ul#serinfo-nav li a,#sec-nav>li>a,.searchformhead>input.s,.tickerwrap>span {font:400 12px/1.7em “Montserrat”, sans-serif;color:#ffffff}.tab-post small a,.taggs a {color:#545454}
    ]]>

    .Africa domain pricing drops

    August 4, 2017 • Mobile and Telecoms, Online Social, Southern Africa, Top Stories

    South Africa, Rand, .africa domain, Price, Revealed, Drop, SME's

    dotAfrica (.africa)

    When the.Africa gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) was released during the General Availability Phase on a first-come, first-served basis to the general public on 4 July 2017, it came at a cost that many SME’s could simply not afford.

    This, however, has changed as this week Domains.co.za unveiled its ZAR .Africa which revealed just how costs have dropped making domains far more affordable for SMEs wanting to purchase and use .Africa domains to start or grow their businesses into African markets.

    Anyone can register a new .Africa domain on the Domains.co.za website. Standard domain names are R350, thereafter, the annual domain renewal fee will be R250 per annum.

    “As most countries in Africa do not have automated domain registration systems, domain registrations usually default to the international .com TLD, which is US-based. The new .Africa gTLD is designed to promote the continent’s entrepreneurial spirit going forward and enhance the economic community of Africa and support its growth,” says Wayne Diamond, CEO of Domains.co.za.

    With Africa being touted as the world’s fastest growing economic marketplace, future business growth should be aimed firmly at this promising continent. Business wanting to positively impact the African marketplace can now engage from a domain name foundation that advertises their patriotic stance by registering their company, brand or trademark with a .Africa domain name.

    “.Africa now gives us an opportunity to encourage not only South African, but other African countries’ business owners to unite under one ‘continental-brand’ domain (.Africa) and lead the drive toward stating Africa’s economic standpoint to the rest of the world. Over and above this, Domains.co.za specializes in offering SMEs affordable, easy-to-use, online tools, like our professional website builder. Our Site Builder empowers them to build their own well-designed website aimed at the online consumer market at a fraction of the cost and time it would take an outsourced third party to develop,” says Diamond.

    “Securing one’s chosen .Africa domain as soon as possible is also the best way of preventing intellectual property disputes and potential attempts at online fraud,” adds Mr. Diamond.

     

    Staff Writer

    Comments

    comments

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    « »

    Search

    Tags

    News Alerts

     

     
     

    In the news


    outsytems
    sap


    hp
    veeam


    bcx


    eset
    Westcon-Comstor


    huawei
    hitachi


    Resolve
    mtn


    tecno
    unicaf


    Arbor Networks

    WWC

    Forex Rates

    Latest Headlines

    Company Press Offices

    ITNewsafrica video

    Photos on flickr

    Newsletter

    Would you like to receive the latest African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning? Then simply subscribe to our free daily e-mail newsletter.
     

     

    African Innovator Magazine

    Subscription
    Where to buy

    © 2017 | IT News Africa – Africa’s Technology News Leader

    Read previous post:

    healthcare innovation summit 2016

    Why attend Healthcare Innovation Summit Africa?

    The 3rd edition of Healthcare Innovation Summit Africa (#HISA2017) is set to take place on 29 and 30 August at Vodacom…

    Close

    Article source: https://www.itnewsafrica.com/2017/08/africa-domain-pricing-drops/

    EFF highlights “trademark bullying” evasion tactics as debate over …

    Trevor Little

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have published a report advising domain name registrants that, in a bid to “minimise exposure to trademark bullying”, they should avoid registering domains in the new gTLD environment. While counsel may object to the ‘bullying’ label being extended to legitimate enforcement efforts, the report could have a positive payback for policing strategies.

    The white paper, Which Internet registries offer the best protection for domain owners?, takes a swipe at new gTLD rights protection mechanisms (RPMs). For instance, the section titled “Recommendations for security against trademark bullies” suggests that the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) poses an additional risk to registrants, and also takes issue with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Sunrise and claims procedures, arguing that “legitimate domain registrants are prevented from registering domains during the sunrise period, or are needlessly frightened away from doing so during the subsequent claims period”. It further criticises the susceptibility of the TMCH to gaming, noting that all trademark registrations are treated equally “no matter how low a particular country’s registration standards may be, and it has even included marks with a graphical element that can’t be represented in a domain name”.

    It also directs its ire towards registries that have gone beyond the mandated RPMs, such as Donuts with its Domains Name Protected Marks List Plus program, “under which brand owners are enabled to block third parties from registering domain names that only partially match their brand, including misspellings, across all of the 200+ new gTLDs that it controls”. It concludes: “For better protection against trademark bullies, you should generally avoid registering your domain in any of the new gTLDs, and be aware that it may be more difficult to successfully register in a Donuts domain… the ultimate protection against domain takedowns is provided by the use of a ‘.onion’ domain, but at the cost of accessibility for the majority of Internet users.”

    Donuts (along with Radix) similarly comes under fire in the section outlining recommendations for security against copyright bullies, with the report hitting out at partnerships with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that establish a Trusted Notifier Program to ensure that websites are not engaged in online piracy. The report states: “In the context of the removal of content under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), takedown requests issued by members of the MPAA have frequently been inaccurate, resulting in the removal of lawful expression from the Internet. Because these special arrangements put a trade association representing the interests of six major movie studios in a privileged position, and because the arrangements lack sufficient due process protections for registrants, chances are high that similar mistakes may be made under its partnerships with Donuts and Radix.”

    Elsewhere, the paper offers strategies for those seeking to evade speech regulators and – for those seeking to avoid identify theft and marketing solicitations – it recommends registering in country code domains that don’t provide public access to domain registrant data, or registering a domain through a registrar that provides free privacy proxy services.

    The accusation that the TMCH is susceptible to gaming is not a new one; we have previously reported on the concern that the registration of generic terms as trademarks has been employed as a route to obtain priority registrations for these terms. We have also noted that trademark industry commentators have expressed sympathy with the criticism that design marks, where the underlying textual element would not be protectable absent the design elements, are registrable in the TMCH. However, does that truly undermine the legitimacy of the community-developed TMCH? For many users is it a vitally important tool, enabling them to secure their brand-related terms and protect their legal rights, and assisting them in monitoring for possibly infringing domain registrations.

    It is also important to note that, while the existence of the URS may pose an additional ‘risk’ to registrants seeking brand-related terms by virtue of its existence, the evidence threshold for URS success is higher than the UDRP. Legitimate registrants – even those seeking to register brand-related domains for criticism purposes – should have nothing to fear from the URS. Additionally, the suggestion that avoiding new gTLDs will help registrants avoid trademark bullies as it takes away the URS threat is somewhat flawed; if a brand owner is prone to over-police, then the UDRP (with its lower threshold of evidence) would likely be the ‘go to’ tool, not the URS. And that is available across all TLDs.

    In terms of the additional offerings of registries, in a comment on the Domain Incite blog Donut’s Mason Cole responded that its RPMs are “well considered, used sparingly, and generally respected by the domain name community”. He added that, with respect to the MPAA partnership, this has “resulted in registry-level action on only three names to date (none in the past ten months) – that’s .000001% of the more than 2.3 million names currently under management. These cases all involved clearly criminal behaviour, and represent no threat to the well-being of thousands of registrants and their names”.

    The EFF report certainly raises a number of important concerns with respect to the policing of free speech on the internet, and the organisation should be commended for highlighting strategies for protecting legitimate free speech online and evading those who wish to censor it. Additionally, it would be naive to suggest that the TMCH is above gaming by some trademark registrants, or that brand owners never over-stretch in their online enforcement efforts. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that the RPMs – which were developed by the ICANN community – are an important legal tool for trademark owners, the majority of which use them responsibly and not to needlessly ‘bully’ registrants and censor speech but to legitimately protect their rights.

    RPMs are the subject of ongoing reviews and will continue to be an emotive issue. However, while equating RPMs with bullying is not helpful rhetoric, the report may ultimately have a positive benefit for trademark owners grappling with the challenge of maintaining surveillance in the wider TLD environment. Should consumers take the offered advice, the recommendation that registrants – particularly those seeking brand-related terms – focus their efforts on legacy TLDS or turn to Tor services (which inevitably have lower visibility to internet users) may actually make targeted policing easier for some counsel.

    Enforcement strategies for the new gTLD environment is the focus of discussion at this year’s Managing Trademark Assets, held in Chicago on October 17. For more information, including details on how to save $100 on the standard delegate rate, visit the event website here.

    Share this article

    Article source: http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/detail.aspx?g=f983de62-f578-4ba5-8980-e243e6b07d29

    This is what it costs for a .Africa domain … – IT

    South Africans don’t need to wait to register .Africa domain names in their own currency after domains.co.za unveiled its rand-based pricing this week.
    The .Africa gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) was released during the General Availability Phase on a first-come, first-served basis to the general public on 4 July 2017.
    Until now, the pricing from the Registry has been costly. However, costs have dropped and .Africa domains are now far more affordable for SMEs wanting to purchase and use .Africa domains to start or grow their businesses into African markets.
    Anyone can register a new .Africa domain on the domains.co.za website. Standard domain names are R350; thereafter, the annual domain renewal fee will be R250 per annum.
    “As most countries in Africa do not have automated domain registration systems, domain registrations usually default to the international .com TLD, which is US-based. The new .Africa gTLD is designed to promote the continent’s entrepreneurial spirit going forward and enhance the economic community of Africa and support its growth,” says Wayne Diamond, CEO of domains.co.za.
    With Africa being touted as the world’s fastest growing economic marketplace, future business growth should be aimed firmly at this promising continent. Business wanting to positively impact the African marketplace can now engage from a domain name foundation that advertises their patriotic stance by registering their company, brand or trademark with a .Africa domain name, he says.
    “.Africa now gives us an opportunity to encourage not only South African, but other African countries’ business owners to unite under one ‘continental-brand’ domain (.Africa) and lead the drive toward stating Africa’s economic standpoint to the rest of the world.
    “Securing one’s chosen .Africa domain as soon as possible is also the best way of preventing intellectual property disputes and potential attempts at online fraud,” adds Diamond.
    Domains.co.za is a South African ICANN-accredited domains registrar, SSD website hosting and SSD cloud provider.

    Article source: http://it-online.co.za/2017/08/04/this-is-what-it-costs-for-a-africa-domain/

    MarkIt to Market® – July 2017

    JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the “Service”) through its website (the “Website”) as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement (“Policy”). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

    Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

    JD Supra collects users’ names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

    The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user’s experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

    JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

    If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

    Email Choice/Opt-out

    Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the “opt-out of future email” option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

    Security

    JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

    If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

    Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

    Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms Conditions of Use.

    In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

    Links to Other Websites

    This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

    Changes in Our Privacy Policy

    We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

    Contacting JD Supra

    If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

    Article source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/markit-to-market-r-july-2017-73268/

    Stabiliteit internet niet in gevaar door uitbreiding domeinnaamextensies

    Steeds meer domeinnamen

    Het DNS (Domain Name System) is één van de meest essentiële systemen van het internet. Het zorgt ervoor dat gebruikersapparaten de webservers weten te vinden voor het downloaden van informatie van bijvoorbeeld www.tno.nl. Zoals uit de notatie van www.tno.nl valt af te leiden kent het DNS een hiërarchische structuur waarin het .nl gedeelte naar het zogenaamde toplevel verwijst. Vijf jaar geleden bestond het DNS-systeem slechts uit ongeveer 300 toplevel domeinen (TLD’s). De meeste daarvan waren countrycode TLD’s, zoals .nl voor Nederland. Naast deze landcodes bestaan er ook generieke toplevel domeinen (gTLD’s). De bekendste zijn .com, .net en .org.

    In 2012 startte ICANN (een not for profit-organisatie die de belangrijkste technische diensten coördineert die van cruciaal belang zijn voor de voortdurende operaties van het onderliggende adresboek van Internet, het Domain Name System (DNS) en de beleidsontwikkeling voor het DNS-systeem wereldwijd coördineert) het Nieuwe gTLD-programma, waarna vanaf september 2013 geleidelijk meer dan 1.100 nieuwe gTLD’s werden geïntroduceerd. De nieuwe gTLD met de meeste registraties is .xyz waaronder inmiddels meer domeinnamen zijn geregistreerd dan onder .nl. Om te evalueren of deze uitbreiding een nadelige invloed zou kunnen hebben op de stabiliteit of veiligheid van het internet root zone system gaf ICANN opdracht tot een empirische studie. TNO heeft deze studie – genaamd ‘Continuous Data-driven Analysis of Root Stability’ (CDAR) – uitgevoerd in een consortium met SIDN (de organisatie achter .nl) en NLnet Labs.

    Stabiliteit en veiligheid waarborgen

    In deze studie heeft het team grote hoeveelheden historische internet-meetgegevens geanalyseerd. Een belangrijke uitkomst is dat tot nu toe alle nieuwe gTLD’s tezamen verantwoordelijk zijn voor slechts een zeer klein deel van het totale aantal bevragingen (queries) op het root DNS-systeem. Het onderzoeksteam vond dan ook geen aanwijzingen dat de nieuwe gTLDs leiden tot een significante toename van de belasting van het root-systeem. Ook werd aangetoond dat de responstijden waarmee apparaten het DNS bevragen niet nadelig zijn beïnvloed door de introductie van nieuwe gTLD’s.

    Deze resultaten worden door ICANN gebruikt in de voorbereiding van een volgende nieuwe gTLD-ronde, als onderdeel van haar missie om innovatie, concurrentie en consumentenkeuze op het internet te stimuleren en de stabiliteit en veiligheid ervan te waarborgen.

    Profiteer van Neerlands unieke DNS kennispositie

    In 2009, voorafgaand aan de introductie van honderden nieuwe topleveldomeinen, liet ICANN ook al een soortgelijk onderzoek doen, genaamd Scaling the root. De studie werd uitgevoerd door een internationaal consortium waar ook TNO deel van uitmaakte. De keuze van ICANN om de CDAR-study door het consortium bestaande uit TNO, SIDN en NLnet Labs uit te laten voeren benadrukt de unieke kennispositie die Nederland heeft op het gebied van DNS.

    Het CDAR-project is één van de toepassingen van de expertise van TNO op het gebied van DNS-stabiliteit en -security.

    Wilt u meer weten over het CDAR-project? Download dan het rapport.

    Wilt u weten wat TNO kan betekenen voor de veiligheid en stabiliteit van uw eigen DNS, neemt u dan contact met ons op.

    Article source: https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-tno/nieuws/2017/8/stabiliteit-internet-niet-in-gevaar-door-uitbreiding-domeinnaamextensies/

    EFF highlights “trademark bullying” evasion tactics as debate over new gTLD policing heats up

    Trevor Little

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have published a report advising domain name registrants that, in a bid to “minimise exposure to trademark bullying”, they should avoid registering domains in the new gTLD environment. While counsel may object to the ‘bullying’ label being extended to legitimate enforcement efforts, the report could have a positive payback for policing strategies.

    The white paper, Which Internet registries offer the best protection for domain owners?, takes a swipe at new gTLD rights protection mechanisms (RPMs). For instance, the section titled “Recommendations for security against trademark bullies” suggests that the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) poses an additional risk to registrants, and also takes issue with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Sunrise and claims procedures, arguing that “legitimate domain registrants are prevented from registering domains during the sunrise period, or are needlessly frightened away from doing so during the subsequent claims period”. It further criticises the susceptibility of the TMCH to gaming, noting that all trademark registrations are treated equally “no matter how low a particular country’s registration standards may be, and it has even included marks with a graphical element that can’t be represented in a domain name”.

    It also directs its ire towards registries that have gone beyond the mandated RPMs, such as Donuts with its Domains Name Protected Marks List Plus program, “under which brand owners are enabled to block third parties from registering domain names that only partially match their brand, including misspellings, across all of the 200+ new gTLDs that it controls”. It concludes: “For better protection against trademark bullies, you should generally avoid registering your domain in any of the new gTLDs, and be aware that it may be more difficult to successfully register in a Donuts domain… the ultimate protection against domain takedowns is provided by the use of a ‘.onion’ domain, but at the cost of accessibility for the majority of Internet users.”

    Donuts (along with Radix) similarly comes under fire in the section outlining recommendations for security against copyright bullies, with the report hitting out at partnerships with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that establish a Trusted Notifier Program to ensure that websites are not engaged in online piracy. The report states: “In the context of the removal of content under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), takedown requests issued by members of the MPAA have frequently been inaccurate, resulting in the removal of lawful expression from the Internet. Because these special arrangements put a trade association representing the interests of six major movie studios in a privileged position, and because the arrangements lack sufficient due process protections for registrants, chances are high that similar mistakes may be made under its partnerships with Donuts and Radix.”

    Elsewhere, the paper offers strategies for those seeking to evade speech regulators and – for those seeking to avoid identify theft and marketing solicitations – it recommends registering in country code domains that don’t provide public access to domain registrant data, or registering a domain through a registrar that provides free privacy proxy services.

    The accusation that the TMCH is susceptible to gaming is not a new one; we have previously reported on the concern that the registration of generic terms as trademarks has been employed as a route to obtain priority registrations for these terms. We have also noted that trademark industry commentators have expressed sympathy with the criticism that design marks, where the underlying textual element would not be protectable absent the design elements, are registrable in the TMCH. However, does that truly undermine the legitimacy of the community-developed TMCH? For many users is it a vitally important tool, enabling them to secure their brand-related terms and protect their legal rights, and assisting them in monitoring for possibly infringing domain registrations.

    It is also important to note that, while the existence of the URS may pose an additional ‘risk’ to registrants seeking brand-related terms by virtue of its existence, the evidence threshold for URS success is higher than the UDRP. Legitimate registrants – even those seeking to register brand-related domains for criticism purposes – should have nothing to fear from the URS. Additionally, the suggestion that avoiding new gTLDs will help registrants avoid trademark bullies as it takes away the URS threat is somewhat flawed; if a brand owner is prone to over-police, then the UDRP (with its lower threshold of evidence) would likely be the ‘go to’ tool, not the URS. And that is available across all TLDs.

    In terms of the additional offerings of registries, in a comment on the Domain Incite blog Donut’s Mason Cole responded that its RPMs are “well considered, used sparingly, and generally respected by the domain name community”. He added that, with respect to the MPAA partnership, this has “resulted in registry-level action on only three names to date (none in the past ten months) – that’s .000001% of the more than 2.3 million names currently under management. These cases all involved clearly criminal behaviour, and represent no threat to the well-being of thousands of registrants and their names”.

    The EFF report certainly raises a number of important concerns with respect to the policing of free speech on the internet, and the organisation should be commended for highlighting strategies for protecting legitimate free speech online and evading those who wish to censor it. Additionally, it would be naive to suggest that the TMCH is above gaming by some trademark registrants, or that brand owners never over-stretch in their online enforcement efforts. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that the RPMs – which were developed by the ICANN community – are an important legal tool for trademark owners, the majority of which use them responsibly and not to needlessly ‘bully’ registrants and censor speech but to legitimately protect their rights.

    RPMs are the subject of ongoing reviews and will continue to be an emotive issue. However, while equating RPMs with bullying is not helpful rhetoric, the report may ultimately have a positive benefit for trademark owners grappling with the challenge of maintaining surveillance in the wider TLD environment. Should consumers take the offered advice, the recommendation that registrants – particularly those seeking brand-related terms – focus their efforts on legacy TLDS or turn to Tor services (which inevitably have lower visibility to internet users) may actually make targeted policing easier for some counsel.

    Enforcement strategies for the new gTLD environment is the focus of discussion at this year’s Managing Trademark Assets, held in Chicago on October 17. For more information, including details on how to save $100 on the standard delegate rate, visit the event website here.

    Share this article

    Article source: http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=f983de62-f578-4ba5-8980-e243e6b07d29

    Comparing Rightside Group (NAME) & YY (NASDAQ:YY)

    Rightside Group (NASDAQ: NAME) and YY (NASDAQ:YY) are both computer and technology companies, but which is the superior investment? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their analyst recommendations, valuation, institutional ownership, dividends, profitabiliy, earnings and risk.

    Insider Institutional Ownership

    68.4% of Rightside Group shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 48.7% of YY shares are owned by institutional investors. 2.4% of Rightside Group shares are owned by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a company will outperform the market over the long term.

    Analyst Ratings

    This is a breakdown of current recommendations and price targets for Rightside Group and YY, as provided by MarketBeat.

    Rightside Group currently has a consensus target price of $10.80, indicating a potential upside of 1.79%. YY has a consensus target price of $58.08, indicating a potential downside of 18.77%. Given Rightside Group’s higher possible upside, equities analysts plainly believe Rightside Group is more favorable than YY.

    Risk Volatility

    Rightside Group has a beta of -0.76, suggesting that its share price is 176% less volatile than the SP 500. Comparatively, YY has a beta of 1.12, suggesting that its share price is 12% more volatile than the SP 500.

    Valuation and Earnings

    This table compares Rightside Group and YY’s top-line revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation.

    Rightside Group is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than YY, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

    Profitability

    This table compares Rightside Group and YY’s net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

    Summary

    YY beats Rightside Group on 6 of the 10 factors compared between the two stocks.

    Rightside Group Company Profile

    Rightside Group, Ltd. is a provider of domain name services that enable businesses and consumers to find, establish and maintain their digital address. The Company is a registrar, offering domain name registration and other related services to resellers and domain name registrants. It provides infrastructure services through its eNom brand. It has over 16.5 million domain names under management. It has a portfolio of over 40 generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) acquired through Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)’s expansion of new gTLDs. It has launched all of its gTLDs, including .NEWS, .LIVE, and .FAMILY, into general availability in the marketplace. Its registry services business builds a distribution network of over 125 ICANN accredited registrars, including GoDaddy, eNom and Name.com, as well as other complementary distribution partners, such as Website builders and e-mail service providers, that offer its gTLD domain names to businesses and consumers.

    YY Company Profile

    YY Inc. (YY) is a social platform that engages users in real-time online group activities through voice, video and text on personal computers and mobile devices. The Company’s segments include YY IVAS and others, Huya broadcasting, and 100 Education. YY enables users to create and organize groups of varying sizes to discover and participate in a range of online activities, including music shows, online games, dating shows, live game broadcasting and e-learning. YY offers users an entertainment experience through its social community. It owns the domain names of YY.com, Duowan.com, 100.com, Huya.com, Edu24ol.com and Zhiniu8.com. The Company’s YY platform, including YY.com, is jointly operated by personnel from Guangzhou Huaduo and Zhuhai Duowan. Its product, YY Client, enables users to engage in live interactions online. Its Web-based YY enables users to conduct real-time interactions through Web browsers without requiring any downloads or installations.

    Receive News Ratings for Rightside Group Ltd. Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for Rightside Group Ltd. and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    Article source: https://www.baseball-news-blog.com/2017/08/01/yy-nasdaqyy-versus-rightside-group-name-financial-review-updated-updated.html

    A generic Top-Level-Domain Name including a third party trade …

    In a recently published decision, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, Germany (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt) found that the mere purchase and registration of a generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) containing a third party trade mark does not necessarily constitute potential registered trade mark infringement (“Erstbegehungsgefahr”). In order to obtain injunctive relief for potential trade mark infringement, further conditions must be met.

    The Case

    The Claimant, a German pharmaceutical and chemical company, is the owner of the protected company symbol “X” which also enjoys trade mark protection for the EU territory by means of an International Registration. The Defendant is a subsidiary of an American pharmaceutical company which is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. A demarcation agreement between the Defendant’s parent company and the Claimant provides that the Defendant is only allowed to use the name “X” in the United States and Canada and that it is obliged to use a geographical addition when entering the German market.

    In 2012 the Defendant applied for the gTLD “.xy” which included the Claimant’s trade mark. There is no website at present. The Claimant feared that the Defendant was going to use the gTLD in relation to pharmaceutical products in Germany and Europe and therefore infringe its trade mark rights as well as its company symbol and applied for an interim injunction before the Frankfurt Regional Court (Landgericht Frankfurt) for an order the Defendant be prevented from

    1. commercially presenting the Opponent’s pharmaceutical goods and services under the gTLD “.xy” in the European Union, especially as announced in Defendant’s application for the gTLD (Annex), and
    2. commercially presenting Defendant’s company (including its subsidiaries) under the gTLD “.xy” in the European Union, especially as announced in Defendant’s application for the gTLD (Annex).

    In the interim injunction process the Frankfurt Regional Court decided in favour of the Claimant without an oral hearing and confirmed its decision.

    The Appeal decision

    At second instance, the Defendant’s appeal was successful. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court set aside the interim injunction for two reasons:

    Firstly, the wording of both requests was too unspecific and would lead to an unjustified prohibition. Although it limits the scope of prohibition to the territory of the EU, it does not determine the necessary “domestic nexus”. The request must specify (a) if the gTLD is intended to be used in the territory covered by the trade mark protection and (b) if use as a trade mark can be assumed. According to the Court, it is neither clear from the request and the Annex referred to which content shall be displayed on the website nor which name the Second Level Domain shall carry.

    Secondly, the Court was of the opinion that the mere purchase of a domain itself cannot constitute trade mark infringement. The claimed injunctive relief lacks the required danger of potential infringement which can only be assumed if there are clear and serious grounds indicating that the conduct of the Defendant will be unlawful in the near future. Therefore it must refer to a specific infringing activity.

    With reference to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Court (BGH), the Court stated that a gTLD generally allows the supply of internet content worldwide. However, the application of national and European trade mark law in case of trade mark infringement in an internet context must not lead to the consequence that every offer of foreign services, in case of likelihood of confusion, constitutes trade mark infringement. It is rather necessary to identify further circumstances that establish a country-specific use of the gTLD. Therefore, the content of the internet offer must contain a sufficient, commercially relevant effect. In order to assess such a “commercial effect”, the Court considered it essential to what extent the economic interests of the trade mark owner are affected by the contested use in the relevant Member State. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account to what extent the use of the trade mark is only an unavoidable side effect based on technical or organizational reasons beyond the control of the domain name owner, or if the domain name owner intentionally profits from the domestic availability which significantly impairs the trade mark owner.

    The Court pointed out that the availability of internet addresses under the gTLD “.xy” in future in the EU including Germany is not sufficient positively to assume such a country specific commercial effect. Rather the content of the website is essential. Against this background, the Court concluded that a commercial effect regarding the EU territory cannot simply derive from the fact, for example, that the Defendant stated in its application for the gTLD that it is running a global company, without informing about any territorial limitations, or the fact that the Defendant’s service provider is supposed to run the gTLD on at least eight servers and two of them are located in the EU. Above that, the Court pointed out that there are no indications that the Defendant will use the gTLD as a trade mark or a company symbol. It was wrong generally to assume that all content that will be provided under the gTLD will be use of the trade mark.

    Conclusion

    The decision is in accordance with the jurisdiction of the German Federal Court with respect to Second Level Domains. In case of Second Level Domains the German jurisdiction acknowledges that the mere registration of the domain name including a third party trade mark neither constitutes use in the course of trade nor use as a trade mark. The trade mark owner is entitled to claim for injunctive relief on a case by case basis only regarding the specific content of the website available at the contested domain name, but not regarding the use of the domain name per se. Hence, in order to enforce its rights in such a case, the trade mark owner will have to find evidence indicating a concrete intention of the domain name owner to use the sign in connection with specific website content that is suitable to have a commercial effect in the relevant Member State(s) and to violate its trade mark rights.

    Case 6 U 151/16

     

    Article source: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55be88b3-76bd-41f8-ac0c-ea55220bb330

    A generic Top-Level-Domain Name including a third party trade mark does not in general constitute trade mark …

    In a recently published decision, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, Germany (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt) found that the mere purchase and registration of a generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) containing a third party trade mark does not necessarily constitute potential registered trade mark infringement (“Erstbegehungsgefahr”). In order to obtain injunctive relief for potential trade mark infringement, further conditions must be met.

    The Case

    The Claimant, a German pharmaceutical and chemical company, is the owner of the protected company symbol “X” which also enjoys trade mark protection for the EU territory by means of an International Registration. The Defendant is a subsidiary of an American pharmaceutical company which is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. A demarcation agreement between the Defendant’s parent company and the Claimant provides that the Defendant is only allowed to use the name “X” in the United States and Canada and that it is obliged to use a geographical addition when entering the German market.

    In 2012 the Defendant applied for the gTLD “.xy” which included the Claimant’s trade mark. There is no website at present. The Claimant feared that the Defendant was going to use the gTLD in relation to pharmaceutical products in Germany and Europe and therefore infringe its trade mark rights as well as its company symbol and applied for an interim injunction before the Frankfurt Regional Court (Landgericht Frankfurt) for an order the Defendant be prevented from

    1. commercially presenting the Opponent’s pharmaceutical goods and services under the gTLD “.xy” in the European Union, especially as announced in Defendant’s application for the gTLD (Annex), and
    2. commercially presenting Defendant’s company (including its subsidiaries) under the gTLD “.xy” in the European Union, especially as announced in Defendant’s application for the gTLD (Annex).

    In the interim injunction process the Frankfurt Regional Court decided in favour of the Claimant without an oral hearing and confirmed its decision.

    The Appeal decision

    At second instance, the Defendant’s appeal was successful. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court set aside the interim injunction for two reasons:

    Firstly, the wording of both requests was too unspecific and would lead to an unjustified prohibition. Although it limits the scope of prohibition to the territory of the EU, it does not determine the necessary “domestic nexus”. The request must specify (a) if the gTLD is intended to be used in the territory covered by the trade mark protection and (b) if use as a trade mark can be assumed. According to the Court, it is neither clear from the request and the Annex referred to which content shall be displayed on the website nor which name the Second Level Domain shall carry.

    Secondly, the Court was of the opinion that the mere purchase of a domain itself cannot constitute trade mark infringement. The claimed injunctive relief lacks the required danger of potential infringement which can only be assumed if there are clear and serious grounds indicating that the conduct of the Defendant will be unlawful in the near future. Therefore it must refer to a specific infringing activity.

    With reference to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Court (BGH), the Court stated that a gTLD generally allows the supply of internet content worldwide. However, the application of national and European trade mark law in case of trade mark infringement in an internet context must not lead to the consequence that every offer of foreign services, in case of likelihood of confusion, constitutes trade mark infringement. It is rather necessary to identify further circumstances that establish a country-specific use of the gTLD. Therefore, the content of the internet offer must contain a sufficient, commercially relevant effect. In order to assess such a “commercial effect”, the Court considered it essential to what extent the economic interests of the trade mark owner are affected by the contested use in the relevant Member State. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account to what extent the use of the trade mark is only an unavoidable side effect based on technical or organizational reasons beyond the control of the domain name owner, or if the domain name owner intentionally profits from the domestic availability which significantly impairs the trade mark owner.

    The Court pointed out that the availability of internet addresses under the gTLD “.xy” in future in the EU including Germany is not sufficient positively to assume such a country specific commercial effect. Rather the content of the website is essential. Against this background, the Court concluded that a commercial effect regarding the EU territory cannot simply derive from the fact, for example, that the Defendant stated in its application for the gTLD that it is running a global company, without informing about any territorial limitations, or the fact that the Defendant’s service provider is supposed to run the gTLD on at least eight servers and two of them are located in the EU. Above that, the Court pointed out that there are no indications that the Defendant will use the gTLD as a trade mark or a company symbol. It was wrong generally to assume that all content that will be provided under the gTLD will be use of the trade mark.

    Conclusion

    The decision is in accordance with the jurisdiction of the German Federal Court with respect to Second Level Domains. In case of Second Level Domains the German jurisdiction acknowledges that the mere registration of the domain name including a third party trade mark neither constitutes use in the course of trade nor use as a trade mark. The trade mark owner is entitled to claim for injunctive relief on a case by case basis only regarding the specific content of the website available at the contested domain name, but not regarding the use of the domain name per se. Hence, in order to enforce its rights in such a case, the trade mark owner will have to find evidence indicating a concrete intention of the domain name owner to use the sign in connection with specific website content that is suitable to have a commercial effect in the relevant Member State(s) and to violate its trade mark rights.

    Case 6 U 151/16

     

    Article source: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55be88b3-76bd-41f8-ac0c-ea55220bb330