Domain name – At Card Loan http://atcardloan.com/ Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:34:39 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://atcardloan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/atcard.png Domain name – At Card Loan http://atcardloan.com/ 32 32 Trust Wallet expands support for .bnb domain name https://atcardloan.com/trust-wallet-expands-support-for-bnb-domain-name/ Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:45:17 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/trust-wallet-expands-support-for-bnb-domain-name/ SPACE ID launched the .bnb domain two weeks ago. In a short time, he announced one of the main integrations via a blog post. The domain name has integrated with Trust Wallet to receive its support, allowing users to change their names and send funds with the .bnb name on the wallet. Trust Wallet plays […]]]>

SPACE ID launched the .bnb domain two weeks ago. In a short time, he announced one of the main integrations via a blog post. The domain name has integrated with Trust Wallet to receive its support, allowing users to change their names and send funds with the .bnb name on the wallet.

Trust Wallet plays an important role in the BNB chain ecosystem. The integration was marked as a major milestone for the Space ID community.

The features available to Trust Wallet users after the conclusion of the integration are as follows:-

  • Users can choose to level up from the traditional BNB channel address.
  • Users can set a custom registration for their domain name and enjoy an enhanced experience on the wallet, as well as many decentralized applications.
  • Non-fungible domain tokens will remain available to users, representing ownership of the domain name.

BNB domain names are portable within and between multiple applications. Users will have the continued benefit of displaying their personalized names and sending funds for life.

Trust Wallet has started allowing users to register for a .bnb domain name. The process begins by accessing the Trust Wallet app and tapping the dApp browser icon.

A link on Trust Wallet will redirect the user to the .bnb domain name registration page. It is important to note that users must have their wallets on the BNB channel with the required minimum BNB loaded during the registration process.

Space ID aims to connect people, applications and information through blockchains. Space ID plans to do this by creating a universal name service network. It is open-source, decentralized, chain-independent, and censorship-resistant in nature.

Trust Wallet is a noncustodial wallet that allows its users to store over 7 million crypto assets. This also includes storing non-fungible tokens in over 68 blockchains.

The wallet has a web3 browser built into the system, allowing users to purchase cryptocurrencies through the native decentralized exchange platform.

Binance acquired Trust Wallet in June 2018. Since then, the wallet service has supported a wide range of crypto transactions and staking of multiple crypto assets. To learn more about the other features of this wallet, visit our Trust Wallet review. The only fees charged by Trust Wallet to its users are gas fees.

The gas fee collected from users is transferred directly to validators or miners. Trust Wallet’s interface is easy to use. This helped the team to peak at a base of 5 million active users. Downloading the Trust Wallet mobile app is free. The security measures deployed by Trust Wallet are PIN scanning and fingerprint scanning.

After integrating with Trust Wallet, the .bnb domain name is looking to expand its integration with more partners.

]]>
Here’s What Probably Happened With eth.link – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/heres-what-probably-happened-with-eth-link-domain-name-wire/ Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:55:58 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/heres-what-probably-happened-with-eth-link-domain-name-wire/ Nobody played dirty, but the expiration process can appear that way. Ethereum Name Service and Virgil Griffith, the licensee of eth.link, recently filed a lawsuit against GoDaddy, Dynadot, and a company that “bought” eth.link at a domain auction at Dynadot. A judge issued a temporary restraining order that returned the estate to Griffith for the […]]]>

Nobody played dirty, but the expiration process can appear that way.

Ethereum Name Service and Virgil Griffith, the licensee of eth.link, recently filed a lawsuit against GoDaddy, Dynadot, and a company that “bought” eth.link at a domain auction at Dynadot. A judge issued a temporary restraining order that returned the estate to Griffith for the time being.

It is a violent trial, pretending that the defendants are taking advantage of the situation to make a profit.

To hear the complainant’s story:

1. GoDaddy failed to renew the domain when it should have been on auto-renewal

2. The domain was renewed anyway, but then GoDaddy decided to let it expire after it was renewed. GoDaddy said it will expire on September 5.

3. GoDaddy then “completed a sale of the eth.link domain name” to Dynadot, and Dynadot auctioned the domain name two days before it fully expired.

It would indeed look bad if that was the course of events and someone didn’t understand how the domain deletion cycle works. I have no inside knowledge of what happened at GoDaddy. Yet, based on my two decades of observing domain names, GoDaddy, and the expiration cycle, I’d bet that what happened was more like this:

1. The domain did not renew automatically for one of two reasons: auto-renewal was not enabled or the payment method on file failed. That last one makes a lot of sense. I suspect your credit cards stop working when you’re in jail for helping North Korea try to evade sanctions.

2. The domain has not been renewed as claimants claim. The domain’s expiration date was July 26, 2022. The complainants say they checked the Whois record a few days later, and it showed the expiration date was changed to July 26, 2023. is correct, but… when domains expire, the registry usually temporarily extends the registration period by one year. This allows the registrant to renew the domain after it expires, but before it goes through the entire expiration cycle. The domain expires if the registrant does not renew within the grace period.

3. Faced with questions about the domain name, GoDaddy informed the public that the domain was not renewed and would completely expire on September 5 (after the grace and deletion period) if the current registrant did not renew it. GoDaddy does not allow anyone other than the registrant to renew a domain.

Typically, when a domain registered with GoDaddy expires, it goes through GoDaddy auctions before being completely deleted. But that was a fringe case because GoDaddy does not currently support new .link domain registrations. The company has therefore entered into an agreement with Dynadot in which expired .link domains are sold through Dynadot auctions. The domain auction process at GoDaddy or Dynadot is automated and requires manual intervention to stop this process.

There was probably a bit of confusion at GoDaddy about this, or at least an oversight. GoDaddy may decide not to remove a controversial name from the auction system if it wishes. But since this was a fringe case, they may have forgotten that the domain would automatically go to a Dynadot auction.

Either way, the domain hasn’t been treated any differently than other .link domains. He went to a Dyandot auction. If no one had bid on the domain, it would have been removed entirely on September 5.

But given the prior use of the domain, it sold – for a whopping $852,000.

The situation isn’t great, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the plaintiffs try to paint it.

What happens next?

It depends on how much GoDaddy and Dyandot want to fight. The money lost at auction is more meaningful to Dynadot than GoDaddy, but GoDaddy might also want to defend its practices. I could see a settlement between the parties where the plaintiffs drop their claims now that they have the domain, and GoDaddy and Dynadot agree to untie the auction. But I could also see one or both companies deciding to challenge it, especially if the plaintiffs are asking for some kind of damages.

]]>
Using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy to Stop or Prevent Fraud | Crowe & Dunlevy https://atcardloan.com/using-the-uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-to-stop-or-prevent-fraud-crowe-dunlevy/ Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:16:39 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/using-the-uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-to-stop-or-prevent-fraud-crowe-dunlevy/ You receive a package of iPhones and they appear to have been ordered by a purchasing department employee (let’s call her Jane Doe), however, you weren’t expecting iPhones. Upon closer inspection, you notice that the order email address was Janey.Doe@oklahomacounty.net. However, there is no “Janey” Doe working for the county, and the county’s website is […]]]>

You receive a package of iPhones and they appear to have been ordered by a purchasing department employee (let’s call her Jane Doe), however, you weren’t expecting iPhones.

Upon closer inspection, you notice that the order email address was Janey.Doe@oklahomacounty.net. However, there is no “Janey” Doe working for the county, and the county’s website is “oklahomacounty.org” not “oklahomacounty.net”. This type of fraudulent behavior was recently reported by the Oklahoma County Board of Commissioners, which reported that Namecheap Inc., an Internet domain registrar, had registered a private domain for oklahomacounty.net. The person who registered the .net domain then used fake email accounts with the domain to order thousands of dollars worth of products. After unsuccessfully asking Namecheap to deregister the domain, the county sought an injunction in Oklahoma County Court against the domain registrant.

What the county is aware of is a type of cybersquatting called typo-squatting or domain spoofing – where a domain name is slightly altered to impersonate another domain (think Amazon.com vs. Amazonn.com or Amazon.org) . Often these imitators not only change the domain name but may also duplicate the entire underlying website trying to trick visitors into spending money on counterfeit products or obtaining their information for additional scams. Another common form of cybersquatting is bad faith cybersquatting, or registering domain names for the sole purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with someone else’s brand. These types of cybersquatters often purchase a domain name containing a trademark from another entity and then attempt to sell it to the trademark owner for profit.

Although filing an injunction with the county may result in an order requiring a domain registrar, such as Namecheap, to freeze, deregister, or transfer the domain, there are other options a person/entity can take if they experiences cybersquatting. The most common and least expensive way to attack a spoofed domain is through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

To buy a domain, a person or business simply needs to decide what words they want to capture in the domain address, find out if the domain is available, and then use a registrar, like Namecheap, GoDaddy, or Domain.com , to register. the desired domain. The person registering the domain can register privately, so their information is hidden from the public. Private registration can cause problems when a domain name infringes on the trademark of another person or entity, because without actual contact information, there is no way to directly sue or contact the registrant. domain, except through the registrar. Due to the rapid growth of the Internet, many branding and cybersecurity issues have arisen due to spoofed domains. Thus, the UDRP was implemented to protect businesses and trademark owners from abusive or bad faith domain registrations that confusingly resemble their own domains.

The UDRP allows the owner of a mark (whether a registered trademark or a common law mark) to file a complaint with a dispute resolution service provider, such as the Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the Forum. The complaint must allege 1) that the disputed domain is identical or similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark, 2) that the registrant of the disputed domain name has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name, and 3) that the disputed domain was registered in bad faith. Where the trademark owner is relying on common law trademark rights instead of a registered trademark, additional evidentiary requirements must be met to prove that there are real rights in the common law trademark. (such evidence includes length of use, types of advertising, sales evidence, public recognition and customer surveys).

Once a UDRP complaint is filed, the registrar is notified and is required to provide the complaint to the registrant of the disputed domain, who may then respond with a response. Notably, in most cases no response is filed – usually because the person who registered the disputed domain was using a fraudulent email address. Once the response date has passed, WIPO or the Forum assigns the file to an administrative committee which will make a decision concerning the domain. It is important to note that the burden of proving domain registration in bad faith in a UDRP process is on the complainant and that the three requirements mentioned above must be met, otherwise the UDRP panel will issue a decision in favor of the same registrant. if he fails. to respond to the complaint. If the Panel decides that the disputed domain is infringing and was registered in bad faith, the Panel will notify all parties involved, and the Registrant will be required to cancel or transfer the domain to the Complainant based on what the Complainant has requested. in the complaint. . However, transferring the domain is usually the preferable outcome as it will prevent the domain from falling into the wrong hands again.

The UDRP process is generally less expensive than litigation. It also provides a brand or business owner with a quick review and result. The UDRP process is an important tool for businesses in preventing fraud and trademark infringement like that experienced by the Oklahoma County Board of Commissioners.

]]>
Lawmakers Push for Whois Privacy on .us Domains – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/lawmakers-push-for-whois-privacy-on-us-domains-domain-name-wire/ Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:44:11 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/lawmakers-push-for-whois-privacy-on-us-domains-domain-name-wire/ 10 Democrats call on NTIA to add Whois privacy to .us domain names. While Whois records in most top-level domains are now private, .us remains an exception: the US government specifically prohibits Whois privacy on .us domain records. It has enforced a no-privacy policy since 2005, much to the chagrin of registrars. A group of […]]]>

10 Democrats call on NTIA to add Whois privacy to .us domain names.

While Whois records in most top-level domains are now private, .us remains an exception: the US government specifically prohibits Whois privacy on .us domain records.

It has enforced a no-privacy policy since 2005, much to the chagrin of registrars.

A group of Democrats in Washington DC want to change that.

Yesterday, 10 members of Congress sent a letter (pdf) to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asking it to implement privacy on all .us domains.

The band wrote:

…Automatic public disclosure of users’ personal information puts them at increased risk of becoming victims of impersonation, spam, spoofing, doxxing, online harassment, and even physical harm. .US should be a model of American values ​​of online privacy and expression. In addition to putting users at risk of misuse of their information, the current lack of privacy protections hampers dynamic expression and meaningful discourse online. Anonymity is a necessary component of the American right to free speech.

The letter calls for privacy to be automatically included on domains and to protect the disclosure of underlying registrant data.

Appropriate steps to correct the NTIA’s decades of inaction to protect .US privacy include offering privacy to users for free and automatically upon registration. Furthermore, any transfer to third parties, including public disclosure, should require the affirmative and informed consent of the user. In addition, NTIA should require governments, including ours, to seek a warrant or other appropriate legal process when requesting access to .US user data. And users should be informed whenever possible that governments, especially adversaries like Russia and China, have sought to access their information.

There will be no arguments from domain registrars or GoDaddy Registry Services, which currently manages the .us namespace. I heard grunts from all parties who wanted Whois privacy to be available on .us domains. In fact, the usTLD Stakeholder Council recommended adding privacy (pdf).

Currently, the registry runs an algorithm to detect private registration data.

The argument against Whois privacy will come from intellectual property interests. Anticipating this argument, the letter states:

Additionally, there is little evidence that continued public disclosure of this information makes the global Internet less safe or secure. In fact, despite the domain industry’s increased protection of user privacy in recent years, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently observed that the number of domains responsible for phishing, malware, spam and botnets has decreased. Additionally, some of the largest domain registrars, which handle tens of millions of domain registrations, receive an average of fewer than 200 requests for previously public registrant data from global law enforcement each year. This figure implies that public safety would not be significantly affected by protecting the privacy of .US users.

The signatories include three people who also wrote to oppose a private equity takeover of .org. Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Anna Eshoo, Brian Schatz, Ted Lieu, Sara Jacobs, Zoe Lofgren, Ro Khanna, Tom Malinowski and Stephen Lynch signed the letter.

]]>
Which Top-Level Domains Are Really Popular, Part Two – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/which-top-level-domains-are-really-popular-part-two-domain-name-wire/ Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:57:22 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/which-top-level-domains-are-really-popular-part-two-domain-name-wire/ Which domains are used the most? Which new TLDs make the kids’ club cool, and which don’t? Last week, I wrote about DataProvider.com’s analysis of new top-level domains and popular ones. As I mentioned in this article, there are many ways to measure the popularity of new TLDs and none of them are perfect. But […]]]>

Which domains are used the most?

Which new TLDs make the kids’ club cool, and which don’t?

Last week, I wrote about DataProvider.com’s analysis of new top-level domains and popular ones.

As I mentioned in this article, there are many ways to measure the popularity of new TLDs and none of them are perfect. But I think we can all agree that looking at raw registration numbers is very misleading.

DataProvider.com has a “Traffic Index” score for domain names. This is a proprietary metric that, according to its website, “uses anonymized login data provided by global carriers” to estimate web traffic to domains.

Of the top 20 registered TLDs, DataProvider.com calculated that .dev has the highest percentage of domains receiving moderate to high traffic. But .dev is not the biggest namespace. As I pointed out in the article, .club, with the second highest percentages, has a higher raw number of trafficked sites.

What if you took the raw number of signups and multiplied it by the percentage receiving moderate or high traffic?

Here’s what that ranking looks like:

  1. xyz (from afar)
  2. on line
  3. store
  4. to place
  5. shop
  6. club
  7. Direct
  8. High
  9. application
  10. it’s you
  11. technology
  12. developer
  13. space
  14. fun
  15. VIP
  16. life
  17. website
  18. icu
  19. tokyo
  20. buzz

If you only look at high traffic sites, the top four are in the same order, but the ranking changes after that.

As I said before, I have no confidence in the calculations I’ve seen on website usage in new TLDs. I think they overestimate the actual websites built on these domains. Still, I think it’s important to look at various calculations to think about data in different ways.

]]>
What’s wrong with this UDRP? – Domain name thread https://atcardloan.com/whats-wrong-with-this-udrp-domain-name-thread/ Thu, 22 Sep 2022 15:47:28 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/whats-wrong-with-this-udrp-domain-name-thread/ If you think there is something wrong with the dates cited in the decision, you are right. I was reading a UDRP decision (pdf) for snugg.com today when something caught my eye. The first two paragraphs of the “factual background” summary that the panelist gathers state: According to the complaint, the disputed domain name was […]]]>

If you think there is something wrong with the dates cited in the decision, you are right.

I was reading a UDRP decision (pdf) for snugg.com today when something caught my eye. The first two paragraphs of the “factual background” summary that the panelist gathers state:

According to the complaint, the disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2020 and updated on August 16, 2021.

On August 26, 2021, the Complainant was incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. He is based in Edinburgh, Scotland. According to the Complaint, since approximately the date of its incorporation, the Complainant has been carrying on business under the name “Snugg”.

First off, anyone reading this summary knows the deal is dead when it arrives. Complainant cannot demonstrate that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith to target a Complainant who did not exist at the time of registration.

The other thing that nagged at me was the check-in date. Snugg.com is an exceptional domain, and a registration date in 2020 would be surprising. This can happen if the domain has expired and gone through the full deletion cycle, but it’s very rare.

The name also sounded familiar to him. It turns out that this domain also faced a UDRP in 2012.

Looking at the Whois record, the record date is clearly 1999, not 2020.

In both UDRP cases, the domain owner did not respond but won.

I don’t know if World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Warwick Rothnie made a typo in the factual information section or if the complainant Arniston Ltd said it was registered in 2020 In this case, the dates always preceded the plaintiff’s rights.

Jerrold Temko represented the Complainant.

]]>
Verisign reports that the Internet has 351.5 million domain name registrations at the end of the second quarter of 2022 https://atcardloan.com/verisign-reports-that-the-internet-has-351-5-million-domain-name-registrations-at-the-end-of-the-second-quarter-of-2022/ Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:05:00 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/verisign-reports-that-the-internet-has-351-5-million-domain-name-registrations-at-the-end-of-the-second-quarter-of-2022/ RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN), a global provider of domain name registration and Internet infrastructure services, today announced that the second quarter of 2022 ended with 351.5 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains, an increase of 1.0 million domain name registrations, or 0.3%, from the first quarter of 2022.1.2 Domain name registrations […]]]>

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN), a global provider of domain name registration and Internet infrastructure services, today announced that the second quarter of 2022 ended with 351.5 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains, an increase of 1.0 million domain name registrations, or 0.3%, from the first quarter of 2022.1.2 Domain name registrations increased by 10.4 million, or 3.0%, year over year.1.2

The .com and .net TLDs had a combined total of 174.3 million domain name registrations in the domain name database3 at the end of the second quarter of 2022, a decrease of 0.4 million domain name registrations, or 0.2%, compared to the first quarter of 2022. The .com and .net TLDs recorded a combined increase of 3 .7 million domain name registrations, or 2.2%, year over year. As of June 30, 2022, the .com domain name database totaled 161.1 million domain name registrations and the .net domain name database totaled 13.2 million domain name registrations.

New .com and .net domain name registrations totaled 10.1 million at the end of Q2 2022, compared to 11.7 million domain name registrations at the end of Q2 2021.

Total country code TLD domain name registrations were 134.1 million at the end of Q2 2022, an increase of 0.7 million domain name registrations, or 0.5% , compared to the first quarter of 2022.1.2 ccTLDs grew by 2.6 million domain name registrations, or 2.0%, year over year. The top 10 ccTLDs, as of June 30, 2022, were .cn, .de, .uk, .nl, .ru, .br, .fr, .eu, .au and .it.1.2

Verisign publishes The Domain Name Industry Brief to provide Internet users around the world with statistical and analytical research and data on the domain name industry. The Domain Name Industry Brief for the second quarter of 2022, as well as previous summaries, can be obtained at verisign.com/dnib.

About Verisign

Verisign, a global provider of domain name registration services and Internet infrastructure, enables Internet browsing for many of the world’s most recognized domain names. Verisign enables the security, stability, and resiliency of key Internet infrastructure and services, including providing root zone maintenance services, operating two of 13 global Internet root servers, and providing registration and an authoritative resolution for the top level .com and .net. domains, which support the majority of global e-commerce. To learn more about what it means to be Powered by Verisign, visit verisign.com.

VRSN

© 2022 VeriSign, Inc. All rights reserved. VERISIGN, the VERISIGN logo, and other trademarks, service marks, and designs are either registered or unregistered trademarks of VeriSign, Inc. and its subsidiaries in the United States and foreign countries. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.

1 All figures exclude domain names in the ccTLDs .tk, .cf, .ga, .gq and .ml. Quarterly and year-over-year trends were calculated against historical figures which were also adjusted to exclude these five ccTLDs. For more information, please see the editor’s note contained in vol. 19, Number 1 of The Domain Name Industry Brief.

2 The generic TLD, ngTLD and ccTLD data cited in the summary: (i) includes the ccTLD internationalized domain names, (ii) is an estimate at the time of the preparation of the summary and (iii) is subject to change as that more complete data is received. . Some numbers in the summary may reflect standard rounding.

3 The basis of the domain name is the active zone plus the number of domain names that are registered but not configured for use in the respective TLD zone file plus the number of domain names that are in a client or server retention state . The registration numbers for the .com and .net domain names are as shown in Verisign’s latest filings with the SEC.

]]>
Info-graphic view from the perspective of the domain name registrar market, https://atcardloan.com/info-graphic-view-from-the-perspective-of-the-domain-name-registrar-market/ Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:15:16 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/info-graphic-view-from-the-perspective-of-the-domain-name-registrar-market/ Domain Name Registrar Market Size Domain Name Registrars Market Study 2022-2027: Domain Name Registrar Market (recently released report) which covers market overview, future economic impact, manufacturer competition, supply (production) and consumption analysis, and se focuses on various products and other market trends. The Global Domain Name Registrar Industry Market research report provides a comprehensive study […]]]>

Domain Name Registrar Market Size

Domain Name Registrars Market Study 2022-2027:

Domain Name Registrar Market (recently released report) which covers market overview, future economic impact, manufacturer competition, supply (production) and consumption analysis, and se focuses on various products and other market trends.

The Global Domain Name Registrar Industry Market research report provides a comprehensive study of the various techniques and materials used in the manufacture of the Domain Name Registrar market products. From industry chain analysis to cost structure analysis, the report analyzes several aspects, including production and product end-use segments of the Domain Name Registrar market. The latest industry trends have been detailed in the report to gauge their impact on the product output of the Domain Name Registrar market.

Get a sample of this report @ https://www.marketresearchupdate.com/sample/352903

Major Key Players of Domain Name Registrar Market are-
DreamHost, GoDaddy, Shopify, Domain.com, HostGator, 1&1 Ionos, Dynadot, Hover, Namecheap, BuyDomains, Google Domains, Bluehost

The results of recent scientific endeavors towards the development of new domain name registration products were studied. Nevertheless, the factors affecting the major industry players to adopt synthetic supply of market products have also been studied in this statistical survey report. The findings provided in this report are of great value to major industry players. Every organization participating in the worldwide production of the Domain Name Registrar Market products has been mentioned in this report, to study the information on cost-effective manufacturing methods, competitive landscape, and new application avenues.

Types of products:
Domain name offer
Web hosting
Domain management

Based on the app:
Personal use
commercial use

Get Discount on Domain Name Registrar Report @ https://www.marketresearchupdate.com/discount/352903

This report also includes expansion, mergers and acquisitions, as well as price, revenue, and production. This report also provides the manufacturer’s revenue, CAGR, and production share.

1) The various global market scenarios have been outlined in this report, providing a roadmap of how domain name registry products have secured their place in this rapidly changing market. Industry players can reform their strategies and approaches by reviewing the market size predictions mentioned in this report. Profitable marketplaces for the domain name registrar market have been revealed, which may affect the global expansion strategies of leading organizations. However, each manufacturer has been described in detail in this research report.

2) The Domain Name Registrar Market Effect Factors Analysis chapter specifically focuses on technological advancements/risks, threat of substitutes, consumer needs/market changes customer preferences, technological advancements in the related industry, and economic/political environmental changes attracting market growth factors.

3) Fastest and slowest growing market segments are given in the study to give a meaningful insight into each central element of the market. New market players are starting their trade and accelerating their transition into the domain name registrar market. Merger and acquisition activity is expected to change the market landscape of this industry.

This report is accompanied by a suite of additional Excel data sheets taking quantitative data from all the numerical forecasts presented in the report.

Regional Analysis for Domain Name Registrar Market

North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)
Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy)
Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia)
South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, etc.)
Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

View full report @ https://www.marketresearchupdate.com/industry-growth/domain-name-registrar-market-scope-and-overview-2022-2027-352903

Content of the offer: The report provides in-depth knowledge on the use and adoption of domain name registrar industries in various applications, types and regions/countries. In addition, key stakeholders can learn about key trends, investments, drivers, vertical player initiatives, government efforts towards product acceptance in the coming years, and present commercial product information. on the market.

Finally, the Domain Name Registrar market study provides essential insights into the major challenges that will influence market growth. The report further provides general details of business opportunities for key stakeholders to expand their business and generate revenue in specific verticals. The report will help existing or upcoming companies in this market to consider the various aspects of this domain before investing or expanding their business in the domain name registrar market.

Our recently published article:

https://tealfeed.com/usa-zener-diodes-market-2022-latest-odtpe

https://tealfeed.com/europe-elastomer-seal-market-2022-huge-twxhj

https://tealfeed.com/usa-optoelectronic-component-testers-market-2022-32mep

https://tealfeed.com/europe-digital-temperature-gauge-market-manufacturers-mohua

https://tealfeed.com/europe-floor-scrubber-market-witness-huge-jgmnc

https://tealfeed.com/usa-advanced-ceramic-powder-market-price-g6mya

Contact us:
+44-20-8133-9198
sales@marketresearchupdate.com

About Us:
Market Research Update is a market research company that
meets the demand of large companies, research agencies and others.
We offer several services designed primarily for healthcare, IT,
and CMFE fields, one of the main contributions of which is customer experience research.
We also customize research reports and provide syndicated research reports and consulting services.

This press release was published on openPR.

]]>
Businesses must register their .au domain name https://atcardloan.com/businesses-must-register-their-au-domain-name/ Mon, 19 Sep 2022 01:22:01 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/businesses-must-register-their-au-domain-name/ Source: Unsplash/Freestocks. The first domain name was registered by computer company Symbolics in the United States on March 15, 1985. The first Australian domain name was registered almost a year later on March 5, 1986. There are approximately 3.4 million domain names registered in Australia. No wonder it’s hard to come up with a name […]]]>

Source: Unsplash/Freestocks.

The first domain name was registered by computer company Symbolics in the United States on March 15, 1985. The first Australian domain name was registered almost a year later on March 5, 1986.

There are approximately 3.4 million domain names registered in Australia. No wonder it’s hard to come up with a name for a startup!

Over the years, there have been tens of thousands of domain name registration disputes. Initially, buying a domain name was on a first-come, first-served basis, so many people registered domain names to sit on them with the intention of making a profit.

One of the biggest changes since 1986 comes tomorrow for Australian businesses when the deadline for applying for a domain name ending in .au closes.

Businesses have had several months to register their .au domain name – but missing the deadline and not registering will be a costly oversight.

Small companies are likely to run into it, but with larger companies it can fall through the cracks because someone from one department thought someone from another department was going to do it.

Fighting over domain names is no fun. This is time consuming and can be expensive, so spending less than $25 to register your .au is money well spent.

The next major milestone after tomorrow is October 4, when names will be released from priority and available for registration by anyone. And there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of people seeing what names they can register.

They can look back and see what happened in the 80s with people sitting on popular domain names looking to make a profit. Of those publicly reported, carinsurance.com sold for US$49.7 million, insurance.com for US$35.6 million and vacationrentals.com for US$35 million. Americans. The 20e #1 is beer.com which sold for US$7 million.

Once a domain name is registered, it is not easy to get back from a legal point of view. Disputes over .com domain names must go through the international system operated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and .com.au through auDA.

Once you have registered your .au domain, you should consider applying for trademark registration for any trademark name that appears in your existing domain name. Trademark registrations put domain name owners in the strongest position to deal with third parties who illegitimately seek to register domain names that copy a trademark registration.

For legal issues related to domain names, it is inevitable that prevention is better than cure.

It should be remembered that to be eligible for first access to the .au domain, applicants must have a verifiable Australian presence. For companies, this means being registered in Australia via an ABN for example.

Businesses will fall into one of two categories. Companies whose domain names were created before February 4, 2018 will fall into the first category. Those whose domain names were created after this date and before March 22, 2022 fall into category two.

If two entities claim priority rights to the same .au domain, a Category 1 company will have priority. If both entities are Category 1 applicants, they must agree between themselves, otherwise the .au domain will remain unassigned.

If there are only category two applicants, the .au domain is assigned to the company with the domain license that was created first.

Even with the priority claim process, there will always be disputes. And litigation can be expensive. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. The advantage is that the resolution via auDA is reasonably fast – around two to three months.

There are three options with any dispute.

  1. Do nothing and the domain name remains with the current owner.
  2. The domain name registration is canceled and becomes available to the general public, even if the original registrant paid a large sum for the domain.
  3. The domain name is transferred to the party raising the dispute.

One of the biggest challenges we all face with domain names is knowing who registered it. It used to be that you could just search online and find the current holder and approach them if you wanted to buy them. Now for top level domains it is much harder to find out who the current registrant is and obtaining these details may require filing a complaint with WIPO for registrant details.

Filing a complaint with WIPO is much cheaper than litigation and can be resolved quickly (within a week or two) with expert advice.

With .com.au domain names dating back to 1986, it’s surprising how regularly disputes still arise today. I can only assume that with .au domain names there will always be disputes, especially in the short term.

You can find accredited registrars to register your .au domain name here.

Len Hickey is an intellectual property partner at Cornwalls leading law firm.

]]>
UDRP Registrants Have a Duty to Research Ownership History – Domain Name Wire https://atcardloan.com/udrp-registrants-have-a-duty-to-research-ownership-history-domain-name-wire/ Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:19:45 +0000 https://atcardloan.com/udrp-registrants-have-a-duty-to-research-ownership-history-domain-name-wire/ A UDRP panel explained the duty of complainants to research the ownership history of a domain name. A panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization has discovered that the French company ITF had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking on the domain name veripro.com. The case raises an important question: what duty does a plaintiff […]]]>

A UDRP panel explained the duty of complainants to research the ownership history of a domain name.

A panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization has discovered that the French company ITF had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking on the domain name veripro.com.

The case raises an important question: what duty does a plaintiff have to undertake research to determine when the domain owner acquired the domain?

In the UDRP, the date the current registrant acquired the domain is compared to the date of the complainant’s trademark. If the domain was acquired before the complainant obtained substantial rights to the trademark, it cannot be proven that the domain was registered in bad faith to target the complainant.

In the veripro.com case, the plaintiff argued that the domain owner acquired the domain in 2013. He relied on a change in use of the domain.

But the Complainant could easily have ensured that this was not the time when the domain was acquired. As the panel points out, readily available (albeit paid) historical Whois data shows that the owner acquired the domain in 2007. Plaintiff could also have sent a cease and desist letter or other pre-litigation correspondence to determine the date of acquisition.

Finding the reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote (in part):

The Complainant is represented by a law firm which claims particular specialization in intellectual property. The Complainant therefore knew or should have known of the requirements of the Policy. The complaint was peppered with quotes from the WIPO Overview 3.0 and quotes from no less than 24 previous cases, suggesting that the complainant should have appreciated the importance of policy case law. Yet the Complainant has not addressed the relevant topics with any degree of adequacy…

and:

The Panel concludes that the Complaint was not adequately researched (the main issues being that the Complainant relied on an erroneous date for the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name, and a lack of reputation demonstrated in the short time between the trademark rights and the registration of the disputed domain name), and that the Respondent should not have been the addressee of this administrative procedure.

There is another interesting wrinkle in this case. After receiving the domain owner’s response, Complainant sought to withdraw the case citing financial considerations because Respondent had requested a three-member panel. The panel did not buy the reasoning:

While Complainant cited financial reasons for seeking to withdraw the Complaint, the Panel considers it more likely that Complainant’s representative reviewed the strength of Respondent’s case and hoped that it could quietly avoid a finding by NHDR. .

If that was the goal, it certainly failed.

Cabinet Bouchara represented the Complainant. No representative is named for the respondent.

]]>