Domain tasting - as described in the Domaining Manifesto - is the shady practice of abusing the 5 day Add Grace Period (AGP) to try out domain names with the aim of registering them if they are shown to be profitable (viewed with a yearly registration period projection in mind).

It was a while ago now that the ICANN GNSO voted to set a new policy that would stop domain tasters from abusing the system and it’s taken a few months ... READ MORE

Sedo today announced record sales for its signature GreatDomains auctions held in November and December. The company passed the $600,000 mark in sales and sold over 90 domain names, including Crab.com for $92,000, Hole.com for $35,000 and Hottube.com for $30,000.

“We’re extremely pleased with the results of our recent online auctions, which demonstrate the value and staying power of the domain industry,” said Jeremiah Johnston, chief operating officer of Sedo. “Even funny domains, such as hottube.com, a “hut tub” mistype, are ... READ MORE

The Web Hosting Industry Review has revealed an interesting tactic used by Register.com to promote their own credentials in the domaining industry - by having a pop at the competition ie Godaddy.

Basically, Register.com distributed what amounts to a mini press release outlining what it has done in the past for the industry and its clients and compared it to Godaddy’s alleged shows of extravagance and pompousness ( summed up by Godaddy’s Super Bowl commercials ).

Register.com’s aim in all this was ... READ MORE

Anyone who reads this blog knows we are squarely again blatant trademark infringing domains, the companies and platforms that sell them, and those who buy them.

However, we are also strongly opposed to large companies trying to take advantage of their wealth, power and ability to pay large legal fees to basically steal domains they have no right to.

He is a case of one such company, Jimmy Choo, the maker of fine footwear made even more famous by Sex in The City.

So here’s the story.

Jimmy Choo lawyers sent a letter, you know the type, threatening a women who owns a small internet gift shop Kookychoo.com, telling her she must agree, by Tuesday, to give up its name or face a lawsuit.

Actually, the owner of Kookychoo.com, registered for her own trademark, when they were first contacted by Jimmy Choo, telling her new company to drop plans to trademark its name or get sued.

She and business partner were prepared to do that, but then another letter this week asked that the company cease using the domain Kookychoo.com

Moreover, not only did they lawyers for Jimmy Choo demand this women stop using the domain, they “want us to send all our business cards and any printed material that we have to them as well.”

Here’s the kicker, the site Kookychoo.com does not sell shoes.

Nor is it a parking site serving up ads containing the trademarked term.

Instead the site features gifts such as a teddy bears, a Venetian glass bracelets and a hot pink bean bags.

“There is absolutely no comparison, there’s nothing remotely even similar in our branding, in the products that we sell.” to Jimmy Choo’s products.

In the latest letter, Jimmy Choo’s counsel, asks Kookychoo to “agree that you will never use the Kookychoo trademark or any other trademark that is similar to Jimmy Choo or Choo in relation to any goods or services that are identical or similar to the goods covered by our client’s registered trademarks”.

Mrs James said lawyers had told her that she might have a case, but it would cost upwards of $50,000 to fight it.

“I’m a mother of seven and I live out on a little farm, there’s no way I have those kind of funds.”

Yesterday she was preparing to accede to the company’s demands.

No doubt, just as bad as a bang on  trademark infringement, are bang on thefts of people’s domain name.

It looks like this company wants any domain ending in “choo” and with the funds to support this legal theft they can pick off people who cannot afford to defend themselves.

When Congress moves on CADNA efforts for stronger trademark laws, next year, I urge the ICA and all domainers to move for a fine or penalty to be imposed, if a judge or WIPO panel determines that the case amounts to reserve hijacking.

Right now domain holders are subject to civil fines and damages if a case is filed in federal court.

Why shouldn’t a company engaged in reverse domain hijacking be liable for the same amount of fines for in its attempt to steal a domain?

Right now we have a situation where a company can play this game risk free.

All they have to do now is pay an attorney a few bucks to write a letter, and if the domain holder can’t afford to fight the case which is going to be 99% of the time, they get something they have no right to for free.  There is no financial downside, because there is no fine or penalty in place for “trademark” holders who go after domains they have no right to.  If there was a $100,000 per domain, fine or damages, for bringing such an action, these companies would have to think twice before stealing other people’s property.

In the meantime keep this case in mind next time your shopping for “choo”s

Interoute, the internet networks company, reports that three of the four internet sub-cables that run from Asia to North America have been damaged.

The cables carry more than 75 percent of traffic between the Middle East, Europe and America.

The AP is reporting mass outages in Egypt as of an hour ago.

Major sub-sea cables break once a year. So companies have developed a fall-back plan. If one sub-sea cable is out, traffic is re-routed onto a second cable. In theory, a dual break, where both cables go out at once, is incredibly rare. Prior to January this year, it had not happened before.

According to new report by Barclays, Domestic ad spending is expected to drop 10% next year,  worse than the declines felt in both the 1991 and 2001 recessions.

The 10% figure comes a little over two months after Barclays pegged next year’s decline at the considerably lesser 5.5%.

Barclays said in 2010, spending should increase 1%.

The 1991 recession caused a 1.9% decline, while the 2001 slowdown brought a 6.2% decrease.

Barclays’ now predicts that the decline next year, will be far greater than what occurred in the aftermath of 9/11.

Barclay’s report predicted that local spending would fall by 12.2%, while national advertising would drop 8.4%.

Barclay’s forecasts that local ads will decline an additional 1.4% in 2010.

However the good news from the report is that Internet advertising should increase 6.1% in 2009 and another 12% in 2010.

Internet advertising (display, search, lead generation, etc.) would still just account for 0% of all ad spending next year, so the online ad section has a lot of upside.

The predictions for tradtional media were not a good.

Barclays forecasts that:

Local TV stations will experience declines of 15.5% and 1.1% in 2009 and 2010, respectively

Newspapers will fall 17% and 7.5%, and radio will drop 13% and 1.7%.

Cable TV ads revenue to fall 3% in 2009, but increase 5% in 2010.

In another report, media economist Jack Myers predicted an “advertising depression.”

Myers, a longtime industry consultant who runs JackMyers.com, is now forecasting an unprecedented three straight years of declines in advertising and marketing spending in the U.S. starting this year.

It projects an overall decline in total marketing budgets from 2008 through 2010 for the first time since the Great Depression.

“”"”We are witnessing epic changes in the ways in which people approach how they move around and how they allocate their budgets, especially with respect to discretionary spending and their attitudes toward debt,” Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg said in a recent report. “We are convinced that historians will label the environment we are in today as something different from a garden-variety recession.”