According to an email I just received from UnitedDomains.com a Registrar, ICM yesterday:
“Yesterday all failed Sunrise applications were released to the public for registration.
A”pplicants who did not have successful Sunrise applications can attempt to register active and blocked domain names.”
“Members of the Sponsored Community who did not qualify for the Sunrise period also have a shot at registering these highly sought after domain names.”
I contacted ICM who said there they haven’t published or furnished a list of these domains that failed and are now available for registration so I guess you just have to try and see if a domain you previously wanted is available.
Should be called the “sunset” period for this crap extension.
I see Dnforum.xxx is now available to reg. I read Adam applied for this domain a long time ago.
This isn’t going to sit well with actual TM holders.
Ah, here’s the thread. http://www.dnforum.com/f17/icm-registry-go-daddy-xxx-denied-my-trademark-thread-471592.html
And now they’ve made it available to any squatter out there. What a joke this registry is.
the puts even more pressure on the failed applicants to pay up and defensively register their tm and/or .com domain name.
otherwise someone else may register it. and then the failed applpicant might have to pay some exorbitant price to that someone in order to get control of it.
is the icann-approved tld registry business cool or what?
no, it’s not cool.
disagree? wanna get in on the action? icann is accepting new applications. you too can have your very own new tld registry and scare people into defensively registering domain names with you. brilliant!
here’s a hypothetical to consider:
imagine someone sets up a roadside billboard company. they unilaterally decide to pre-print each blank billboard with a prominently displayed trademark in the lower right corner. there’s nothing else on the billboard’s remaining space. they offer to sell annual leases for control of the remaining space on the billboard to the applicable trademark holder, or if they don’t want to pay, then to anyone.
can the trademark holder sue the billboard company? or does she have to try to sue whoever purchases a lease to the billboard showing her trademark?
wait there’s more.
in order to encourage more leases, the billboard company makes it possible for the lessees to remain anonymous. the company offer these lessees a “proxy” mail fowarding service.
now how can the trademark holder sue the lessee? it’s very difficult for her to track down the lessees.
in response to tm holder concerns, the billboard company sets up a dispute resolution arm. for a fee, they will send a complaint to the otherwise anonymous lessee and help the tm holder resolve the dispute through either revoking or transferring the lease if the tm holder is successful.
later based on more tm holder concerns the company decides to give leases to tm holders on a priority basis. but if the tm holder does not take a lease, the company will place her tm on a list of all available tm billboards for which the tm holder was offered but did not take a lease. this list is then printed publicly for all other prospective lessees to see.
could such a business work?
why, or why not?
Personally, I think the whole process stinks of nothing more than a registry cash grab at it’s very worst. Someone pointed that I could register the dnforum.xxx just now so I did. But if I didn’t get it I was prepared to go after the ICM registry for there mishandling of this situation. I have numerous emails to them showing that I was the dnforum trademark holder but because my trademark did not include dnforum.xxx they wouldn’t give it to me. Rediculous! I feel very badly for all those that have/had to go through a similar situation to protect their already trademarked brand.
ICANN again at work screwing things up by allowing this extension in the first place.
ICANN has only successfully confused the entire surfing population.
Yes, TM holders had to pay a nonrefundable fee to apply for a domain they don’t want only to be told that they don’t hold their own TM. Weeks later, those same TM holders are told that their marks have been put on the market; they can now defensively register that domain for a mere $75.00 But don’t forget that settlement talks are underway. So, sometime during to next 4 to 8 weeks, we can expect the announcement of the settlement–I’m guessing at least a 50% reduction in price–maybe 30 to 35 bucks. So then, TMholders will have paid application fees and registration fees on unwanted domains only to have the registrar give away half of their value–or some significant depreciation–before they know what’s happened to them This is going to get ugly.
Is there a way to find out any newly registered .xxx domains?
blatant racketeering, that’s exactly what it is.
“Buy your name in the .XXX space so that nobody else tarnishes it with a porn site”
Seriously, THAT was the marketing used to extort reg fees from non-adult businesses.
Now that ICANN has seen the game, they want in too…. hence the new gTLD’s… along with 10’s of millions in revenue to them.
Ain’t that just lovely…
This extension is nothing more than a shakedown.
TM holders being “coerced” to pay “protection money” to avoid their TMs being abused.
The registry and registrars embrace this, having no problem marketing around “Protect your brand”.
Brad
I don’t think that the Internet should not evolve because of trademarks. There aren’t enough meaningful .com domains for every person on the planet. Innovators want to have their own TLD, who is anyone to stop them? Trademark owners want to own a word (even taking the names of our, YES OUR, fruits – Apple, Orange, Blackberry…), they are profiteers themselves!
Now for NGOs, I think there needs to be more protection. They should not have to pay anything.
@ Jay
I agree TM holders can be too aggressive at times, however this is an extension that the adult community does not even support.
Marketing domains to TM holders with a “Protect your brand”campaign is not an innovation. It is selling protection.
Brad
@ Brad
Porn was one of the first things to take off on the Internet. It’s no surprise that an adult extension would emerge down the line.
ICM have probably spent a lot of money with the “Protect Your Brand” campaign so that trademark holders are aware of .XXX. If they did not bother to do this then there would have been a huge amount of cybersquatting and even worse negativity towards the TLD. I would have thought that this kind of campaign was in the agreement with ICANN.
I’d like to know how the hell ICM Registry was able to get approval by ICANN on this when it clearly didn’t have support from the adult industry – unless you want to count the company they promoted, whose lawyers happen to work for both ICM as well as that company (Webpower/iFriends). Of course you’re going to have support from them, you share the same damn lawyers. Lots of hidden tied between the two companies. Oh and looky – they’re both in the same little area of Florida – West Palm Beach and Lake Worth. A stone’s throw from each other.
No conflict of interest here though. Noooooooo!
Ann
I’m not in the lawsuit but I don’t see any “settlement” coming from this suit where ICM agrees to reduce its fees.
The lawsuit isn’t about $79 current retail or $49 retail the suit which really has no merit IMHO in law, is about Manwin securing the .XXX domain names it wanted.
Again IMHO I don’t believe Manwin filed this lawsuit for any reason other than to get something out of it like anyone would when spending a ton of money.
dnforum.xxx
Adam you have a trademark on DNFORUM as a “domain name forum.”
This one is for dnforum.com, search dnforum.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk.do?lang=eng&status=OK&fileNumber=1517471&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1
so what? He could have a TM on DNforumn as a cat scratching post device and still should have been allowed to get the .xxx version during sunrise… then, after rejecting his sunrise claim and holding the domain hostage… do they reach out to him and say “hey, we can give this to you now”?… NO, they just made it available without a sound.
Does he want to build an adult version of DNforum? I sure hope not… (have you seen what some of those domainers look like? LoL)… No, he “needs” to register it for what…? Yup, to “protect his brand”… that’s bullshit.
@ Adam
1.ICM Registry was very clear about their policy regarding IP and trade marks from the very beginning and their policy is fair and legitimate.
2. If someone has a registered trade mark ,let’s say the word “Example”, he/she should have the right to use the word”Example” but that does not necessarily mean that he should have the right for “Example.com” or “Example.net” or “Example.ru” or “Example.de”….etc! And, if someone has the registered trade mark “Example.com” , that also does not necessarily give him the right for “Example.xxx” either!
@amanda36c
The .xxx got approval to provide the world with safe, legal and high quality products and services through safe and legal internet use that works for the benefit of all society members from family to users and stakeholders
In fact, the .xxx should have got approved over 10 years ago to stop illegal use and abuse of the internet that, unfortunatley, has been practiced by big Adult companies who thought they have got away with their illegal, abusive and unethical business practices to satisfy their greed.
Fortunately,It is great to see a company with a clear vision like ICM Registry taking the lead to revolutionize the internet and bringing back some discipline and security to the internet and the world.
@Berkens Would you like to make a little wager? I will bet you your pick of any domain in my portfolio that, if a settlement is reached, it will include a reduction of at least 50% in the price of registration/renewal. Are you confident enough in your assertions to put your money where your mouth is? Or, are you just talking for the sake of talking?
Yes, indeed, Stuart is arrogant enough to give away half of what you own. Maybe an actual reporter of journalist could ask him.
Euro.xxx was registered on the 14th to the same person who owns euro.asia.
Goodness me, so much misinformation and ill informed speculation.
Firstly, only FAILED sunrise apps were released for exactly that reason: they FAILED, despite us giving two extensions of time for applicants to send in any extra supporting documentation.
I am sure the community wouldn’t want us to be issuing domains to applicants under Sunrise that did not have qualifying TMs.
@Adam. If i recall correctly, we have communicated with you several times on this and again IIRC the trademark in question was for DNFORUM.COM not DNFORUM. A trademark including a domain suffix does not confer any rights on the term to the left of the dot. There is legal precedent for that I believe in the HOTELS.com case. I am pleased you were able to get the domain you sought anyway.
@ Amanda36C. ICM does not share the same lawyers as Webpower. We simply hired a new full time General Counsel who had previously been employed as assistant General Counsel at Webpower and had relevant adult , TM and domain experience. There are no ties whatsoever between ICM and Webpower. No cross ownership or common management. Nothing. NADA.
@Ann. Pricing is a matter for the registry and the registry only. I am on record in various public fora saying that once launched we would review registration numbers against our 5 years forecasts (included in our 2004 application to ICANN) and consider whether a price adjustment was appropriate. I am pleased to say we are well ahead of our forecasts but at the same time our costs of running our registry services are probably the highest of any TLD and higher than we originally forecast. You may have seen the recent article on dot-nxt.com explaining how the new Whois accuracy requirements being advocated by ICANN and the GAC and Whois Review Team in the proposed RAA are anticipated to possibly double the price of a .com if introduced. We already do that as standard.
Mr. Lawley,
No ties? Have a look. Shows Sheri Falco (the lawyer in question) as registrant name for Cam2Cam.xxx and then, after I mentioned it, of course her name was replaced by “registrar”. I didn’t manipulate this. Anyone with an account on Whois can see for themselves in the historical records of this query. If she doesn’t represent Webpower, why is her name there attached to this site which clearly shows Wp (Webpower) as registrant? See left screenshot. On the right, is the updated version, where a name once existed, until it was pointed out. Mario Morales was the other name that disappeared. See the difference between the 2 screenshots?
http://amanda36c.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/webpowericm-registry-hides-their-lawyer-sheri-falco/
On the IFFOR, Falco sits as well, making policies for ICM Registry and our dot xxx sites. Conveniently, Mr Andrew Kayton (Webpower’s current lawyer) also sits on that IFFOR. No ties?
I think if investigated, ties indeed would be found. Unfortunately, the right people have not yet gotten around to investigating this. There absolutely are ties here. Definitely, without question. You can deny it and hide it all you want. Sugar-coat it all you want, Mr. Lawley, but people really aren’t that stupid.
@Stuart How widely did you publicize the fact that your business strategy includes planned devaluation? Were most buyers told that the domains which they were purchasing would lose a significant portion of their value during the first six months?
@ Amanda36C-
I would assume that Ms Falco was listed as the contact on many/all of web powers domain names as she was the person that dealt with those matters whilst at Webpower. Again, I assume that after she left Webpower to join ICM the whois records were changed to the name of the new person that deals with those matters within Webpower. This is the same at all companies, that when the listed contact leaves the records are changed to represent the new contact…
Ms Falco took my place on the Board of Directors of IFFOR when I stepped down as Chair in November.
Mr Katon was nominated to the IFFOR Policy council given his knowledge of the industry and his experience in Free Speech Issues having previously represented the ACLU.
@ Ann . How do you equate a drop in the registration fee of any TLD with a devaluation in the capital value of a domain name? Many experts would argue the exact opposite that when the “ground rent” or cost of holding an asset is reduced , often its capital value appreciates.
It looks like we are about to test that assertion.
does it? you obviously know more about our business than i do 😉
@ Ann
It is true, .TV premium fees are a prime example.
I think for .xxx to take off the registration/renewal price most definitely needs to come down by at least 50%.
Looks like Job.xxx was picked up on the 14th too! I’d put that in my top 20 keyword .xxx names to own. Nice!
Mr. Lawley,
You just stated that Falco replaced you on the IFFOR in november. In fact, you announced her as the general counsel for ICM at the same time, on your site. It’s funny because Whois shows her as registrant (with Webpower) december 21st. If she left Webpower to go work for you full-time back in november, what’s she doing as registrant for Webpower buying up (competing sites’) dot xxx’s at a later date?
On august 5th 2011, when Falco did your trademarks, was she working for you or Webpower?
– No ties. Right. I keep forgetting!
Amanda 36C,
This is getting tiresome…
Ms Falco came to work for us in Summer 2011 full time and had no further responsibilities in her previous job from that date forward.
Is it such a push to realize that it may take several months for companies to change and update the contacts in the whois records when they may own hundreds or thousands of domain names??
In fact ICANNs own whois review team wrote a 90 page report on just that which can be found here . http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm
Perhaps you may wish to comment there.
Mr. Lawley,
These are NEW domains, not domains that have been around for a long time. They are .XXX domains. It didn’t seem to take very long for a change to happen between Falco being the registrant and Domain Registrar. There are tons of updates and changes there.
Indeed, this is becoming tiresome. There are ties though. Why you are lying about that is clear. Do you even know who you are in business with? Judging by your business practices, pricing, “confidentiality” excuse to anyone questioning anything of you and your monopolistic acts, it appears you do.
I’m not claiming to know anything about your business other than what you yourself have said publicly. Your company has announced that it in settlement talks. One does not settle claims of price gouging without lowering the price. So, unless you are saying that a settlement is unlikely, common sense tells us that is significant reduction of price is coming soon.
Ann
I believe the settlement talks comes from a pleading filed in the case by Manwin which represented to the court that the parties might settle some or all of the issues
Stuart Lawley’s quote “Ms Falco came to work for us in Summer 2011 full time and had no further responsibilities in her previous job from that date forward.”
The domain cam2cam.xxx that Amanda is showing was registered December 1st 2012. That would have been while she was an employee for you.
Something isn’t adding up with what you are saying.
Whoops, December 1 2011.
Adam, your comments simply are not true.
As you know, your application in the US was refused twice for descriptiveness, and only recently issued, well past the cutoff date, on a Section 2(f) basis.
Your Canadian registration is not for a textual mark, and the textual portion of your Canadian registration is “DNFORUM.COM THE PLACE TO TALK DOMAINS”
Now if the system was “pick any words you want from a trademark registration”, then why weren’t you claiming “THEPLACETOTALK.XXX” or “DOMAINS.XXX”.
Surely you cannot claim that you believed that Canadian application (which was approved January 2012) qualified for either the Sunrise cutoff date or the rules.
I can completely understand your feeling that “DNFORUM” is, in some sense, “the part that matters”.
But every joker on the planet with some weird-ass figurative trademark registration wants to make the same argument – “Oh, I know my actual registered trademark has a lot of other crap in it, but I want to get a domain name that corresponds to some bit or piece here or there.”
Look, when you use a trademark and when you file for registration of that mark, you have complete control over the simple act of clearly stating what it is you believe to be your mark.
You wanted to get a sunrise domain name that did NOT correspond to the actual contents of any registered mark you had at the relevant time, and I cannot believe you are not sophisticated enough to understand what the qualifying rules were (which weren’t much different from .co or .info for that matter) and what was actually in your trademark registration.
It’s one thing to be upset about not getting something you wanted, but it is another thing entirely not to present the actual facts behind it.
Still awaiting a reply Stuart. Please explain to us how your employee registered the domain cam2cam.xxx on Dec. 1. 2011 under Webpower while she was working for you since mid-summer 2011 under your own admission. Especially when I only see one trademark for “cam2cam” and it doesn’t belong to Webpower.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
Or did Webpower get to cherry pick?
@John Berryhill
ok, you made your legal point.
My point is that I don’t see anyone else with a valid claim to use dnforum.xxx. Had I been given dnforum.xxx I would have bought many more .xxx names but I didn’t get it so I didn’t buy that many of them. I was forced to wait until it went public so I could register it. The legal facts are what they are and I can’t argue that but my opinion is that this just disn’t sit well with me. I am entitled to my opinion, right or wrong.
it’s funny because the http://whatever and whatever.com trademarks are not easy to get, if the uspto’s list of registered marks is any indication.
they do exist here and there but i’ve read the uspto is not going to accept [trademark].com applications easily. they will scrutinise them closely.
now if you are lucky enough to get your [trademark].com mark approved, you could theoretically go after some who’s registered that domain.
but beyond that, how useful is a [trademark].com mark?
as what seems to be suggested here, it’s probably no good against people registering in other registries besides .com
it’s a very narrow protection, imo.
of course, icm can’t trademark .xxx either. the uspto has more or less indicated that they will not grant trademarks for tld’s.
so if you want to start your own .xxx registry, icm will just have to accept it.
all this seems unfair because people place far too much faith in “internet naming” as some sort of thing that is etched in stone. it is not so.
the internet, as well as your computer, is based on numbers. names are arbitrary. you can choose them yourself. you can use names chosen by someone else. or you can just use numbers. inevitably using names will get confusing and they will start colliding with each other.
with domain names, no effort is being made to address this. instead, people want to try to “sell” more names. that means more confusion and more collisions. and maybe frustration when people realise there are no rules etched in stone about names on the internet.
there’s only trademark law. and it is what it is.
it’s good to be in the dispute resolution business. because this is a recipe for more disputes.
@dicker
Adam don’t feel bad. Your batting 500 which in baseball would make you a hero. You used this “faux” mark of yours to bully a kid who lives with his parents out of A generic domain using this same hallow argument. A person of means like lawless I mean lawley isn’t as easy to push over huh?
Curious, given your supposedly staunch position with respect to tms how do you balance your personal history of squatting on other peoples marks and your theft of intellectual property. I believe there is a police file out there with your name on it no? I recall charges being laid no? So you value your own copyright and trademark rights but not those of others?
@ lawley that December registration date is a tad inconvenient huh?
Two pirates one treasure!
@adult
Are you the same abusive @adult on twitter?
Hard to answer anonymous posters…
anyways….yawn…… no Ms Falco did not register the name on that date.
In fact she didn’t register any of the names. How her name ended up appearing in WHois as the contact for Webpower is a matter for them not us.
If you examine ALL the .xxx whois records you will see that the earliest date showing is Dec 1st 2011 and that includes all founders names and ICMS’s own names, see http://www.icm.xxx for example.
That was the date when we “normalized” the Whois data for all the names added since April 15th when we went in the root and in anticipation of the Dec 6th Launch. The Name you mention was a Founders Contract name acquired by Webpower in very early summer BEFORE ms Falco joined ICM in July 2011.
Like i said, Facts are Facts. Nothing more will be added on this point.
What’s so hard about answering an annonymous post Stuart?
A question is a question regardless of who it is attributed to
pudding +1
@Adam
It’s absolutely fine to be critical of the process or the policy decisions that were built into it. I was just addressing the notion that you were not treated fairly under it.
The problem is trying to draft a “one size fits all” policy. It’s not going to meet some definition of “fair” in every instance. That’s always true.
As you know there is a cottage industry in manufacturing bullshit trademark registrations for the purpose of qualifying for these kinds of things. So you have to try to design a policy to limit that sort of thing, while also keeping the major brandowners happy. As you also know, while of course we all know and respect DNFORUM, it is a forum for discussion of domain names which renders the term at first blush to be a descriptive term. That’s what the USPTO decided in your first go-round, and why you had to present evidence of acquired distinctiveness the second time around.
I’m frankly surprised at how many TM owners actually cared about the sunrise registration process. I agree with the observation that ICM using a “protect your brand” pitch was not a good idea, and sent the wrong message. There were TM owners who asked me about the .xxx sunrise, and unlike attorneys who make a living trying to convince others that they are in great danger if they don’t fork over fees, my basic attitude hasn’t changed on this thing in years – why in the heck is anyone going to be typing in your trademark under .xxx?
It just doesn’t make sense to me.
But on the one hand, you have attorneys who are trying to put the fear of God into their clients in order to up their billings, and along comes ICM with “protect your brand”. It’s all just a bundle of pointless wasteful nonsense if you ask me.
But it’s over, and the sun still rises in the east.
And, I should add, “there is no valid claim to use” johnberryhill.xxx either. Now, having mentioned that, some nitwit is going to probably register it. But, seriously, I can’t see getting my panties in a bunch over someone registering my name in another TLD. I mean, good golly, someone has a funny picture of me up at berryhill.info but what’s the harm in that?
@Lawley
You make a lot of incorrect assumptions and sure like to spin the facts just right to misdirect any further questions into your connections with Webpower Inc/Ifriends. Let’s list your inaccuracies:
– In all my extensive research of Webpower Inc, Sheri Falco does not appear on any domain names for Webpower, WP, RMT, WPI, Inc,WP, WP Inc or any of the other hidden company names. Just the three clickcash.xxx, ifriends.xxx and cam2cam.xxx but these are simply the only ones found so far as .XXX domain names are difficult to find.
-These three and probably more were purchased under the founder’s program between April and July with according to you, Sheri falco’s name because she was working for them at that time.
-Falco according to you leaves Webpower Inc in July to work for Icm Registry.
– Icm Registry submits the .XXX domain names and information to whois on Dec 1. for ready of the Dec 6 launch but your people don’t check any of the information sent, for errors. Whoever sent and checked the information from your company didn’t know that Sheri Falco worked for ICM Registry as the General Council not Webpower Inc.?
– Webpower Inc. forgets to remove Falco’s name from their .xxx domains when she left their company in July but every domain they own has more info changes than the average person can change their underwear in a year.
– Webpower Inc. fails to check their new .XXX domains on whois from Dec. 1, 2011 to Jan 31,2012 for any errors to their records?
– Your company doesn’t bother to check that there are no errors made by Whois when entering the new .XXX information? Pretty poor verification process.
– The information on Whois finally gets changed by your company or Webpower Inc just hours(according to Whois records) after Amanda36c writes about it in her Blog. What efficiency after all these errors. Looks like some one is trying to hide something important, not a mistake. Oops you got caught.
-Cam2Cam. com is owned by Webpower Inc’s competitor, streamate(FCI Inc) but Webpower Inc is given the right to buy it under the Founder’s program before FCI Inc. is even given the chance?
-The actual Trademark for cam2cam is owned by Sky Holdings Group LTD, Toronto, ONT http://www.trademarkia.com/cam2cam-77938699.html but your company is supposed to check trademarks for .XXX or does that not count in the founder’s program? Does Sky Holdings Group Ltd belong to Webpower Inc.?
So your statement that the facts are the facts isn’t very true is it. Why is it that you hide information about the .XXX domains sold and tend to hide behind confidentialities when it’s convient? Why are your supposed small group of investors, as stated in your declaration to the court in the Manwin suit, a guarded secret? Why don’t you give the real name of the well known On-line gaming media company that you were a supposed investor and Director or is that confidential as well? Have you checked with your Chief Technical Officer, Len Bayles about all his connections throughout the industry or do you already know them?
For the CEO of the supposed protectors of Porn and the only .XXX registry, you sure are secretive and uninformative but expect the registrants of .XXX domains to follow all your rules and give all necessary, proper information about their sites. You keep trying to deliberately separate yourselves from Webpower Inc. and their shady dealings.
Why don’t you just answer the questions asked, truthfully without spinning or hiding behind confidentialities? Won’t be surprised if you don’t answer all of my questions just the ones to keep your shell game going. Under a microscope this looks like organized crime!
Elliotness29
@ Elliotness29
Every organisation has the right to keep its business strategy confidential and ICM Registry is no exception. This is the simple answer to all your questions!
Someone got PornHub.xxx & YouPorn.xxx on the 14th and has listed them for sale on Sedo! The .coms are owned by Manwin! No wonder they started a law suit, they were rejected!
Here’s the list of failed TM .XXXs that I have found so far:
Job.xxx
SexJob.xxx
Euro.xxx
Photographs.xxx
PornHub.xxx
YouPorn.xxx
…
“business strategy”
LOL!
Stuart Lawley “@adult Are you the same abusive @adult on twitter?”
Pot meet kettle.
In my opinion you are the most abusive registry in the history of the Internet. But hey, your terror campaign worked. Congrats.
Yesterday stats showed 0 .xxx were registered, and like 50 today. Huge demand! Congrats, you beat .tel today by 2 regs! You guys are crazy HOT!