Tech Radar published an article todayon new gtlds and the problems brands are already having with protecting their brand. The article references a study from Brad Newberg at Reed Smith, the sample study took a look at 20 brands in the bicycle industry and how fast some of their names were taken by those not affiliated with the company.
Canyon.bike is referenced as to being regged, “seven seconds after it became publicly available”. The article goes on to tell brand owners to be more proactive and what action they can take.
From the article:
“Brand owners are still taking time to get used to gTLDs, and we have not yet seen the predicted rush of complaints. However, the reality is that brand owners risk being caught out by the expansion of the domain name system and will need to consider how to react if their brands are encroached upon by cybersquatters.
Some brand owners have already taken a proactive approach to domain blocking and registrations, and/or as an initial step have registered with ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse.
However, with up to 1,400 new gTLDs proposed, the challenge for brand owners to comprehensively prevent third party registrations of domain names that overlap with their trade marks is set to continue.
Read the full article here
“You may think that boy will marry you because you’re willing to sleep with him, but why should he buy a cow if he can get milk for free?” This crude and jocular axiom is often used by friends to caution stupid girl that’s shacking up with a guy, or having sex without commitment. But it should be modified and applied to ICANN and it’s UDRP people. Day in, day out, they waylay domain owners for common dictionary words in the name of brand-protection, copyright infringement, and trademark violations, only to turn around a sell same words to the highest bidders as a full domain extension, not just a domain name. Talk about your CASH cow! Who needs the milk, eh domain names, when you can buy the entire extension, yet avoid the ICANN-UDRP harassment?
As ICANN recovers operating costs as a non-profit, the problem lies at the feet not of ICANN, but that of the registries that have acquired the extension and it is they who profit off of “brand-protection”, not ICANN. It doesn’t matter to ICANN if a name sells for a larger dollar figure.
As for the “UDRP people”, that would in fact be the very people who are targeted as needing “brand protection” by way of the very bureaucracy they themselves caused to come into being, such as WIPO.
As for the “buy the entire extension”…that works only so long as no one else applies for it or complains about it and can provide compelling reasons (.Amazon anyone?)
While there may be an issue about domain names and cybersquatting, the article does look a bit like an advertorial rather than a serious multi-TLD study of cybersquatting in the new gTLDs. Both the article’s author and the individual who apparently carried out the “study” work for the same firm.
Hello Rh,
Googles actively pursuing Brand Destruction for their Profit. Don’t know what this means , research before you swallow any Ad companies bait that ulimately leads to endless billing cycles. (.Com Centric Url traffic is your refuge).
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger) (Domain Master)
if the goal was to allow ICANN and Registrars to make more money … the simplest way would been to increase the prices of com org net etc. rather than put the Web into confusion with hundreds new TLDs …
Well accept that none of the new registries could have made money under the old model and registrars are now not making $1 a registration but $5 $10, $20 even hundreds or thousands on EAP registrations