Archive for June, 2010:

Vertical Axis VS The University of Texas For TexasSports.org -Let’s See Who Won

Written on June 29th, 2010 by directnavigation2 shouts

I just finished reading the decision for the UDRP involving Vertical Axis Inc (VA) vs. , The University of Texas System. Very good decision. Vertical Axis Inc wins the decision.
I enjoyed reading this so much, I posted a copy of the complete decision below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v. Vertical Axis Inc.
Claim Number: FA1004001322040

PARTIES
Complainant is Board of Regents, The University of Texas System (“Complainant”), represented by William G. Barber, Texas, USA. Respondent is Vertical Axis Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Ari Goldberger, New Jersey, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is (the “Domain Name”), registered with Nameview Inc.

PANEL
The undersigned certify that each has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., and Hon. Neil Brown, QC, as Panelists; Christopher Gibson as Presiding Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 29, 2010.

On May 4, 2010, Nameview Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the Domain Name is registered with Nameview Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameview Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On May 6, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@texassports.org. Also on May 6, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 26, 2010.

Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on June 1, 2010 that was deemed timely and in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7. On June 8, 2010, an additional submission of Respondent was forwarded to the panel, which had been received by the Forum in a timely manner in accordance with Supplemental Rule 7.

On June 7, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. and Hon. Neil Brown, QC as Panelists, and Christopher Gibson as the Presiding Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, as well as to its website address for athletics at .

Complainant and its flagship institution, The University of Texas at Austin (“UT”), use the marks TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, TEXAS LONGHORNS, LONGHORNS, and others that include these terms extensively in connection with UT’s sports teams. Complainant asserts rights in the TEXAS marks through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,426,639 registered on January 27, 1987). Complainant states, in particular, that the mark TEXAS (e.g., Reg. No. 1,231,407) is an incontestable registration for “Entertainment Services-Namely, Providing College Athletic and Sporting Events.” All of these registrations are on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and, except for Complainant’s TEXAS LONGHORNS registrations, all are incontestable.

Complainant further explains that UT’s licensing program is highly successful. Fans of UT and its athletics programs can purchase a wide variety of licensed products adorned with Complainant’s trademarks. UT’s athletics programs have been highly successful over the years, and the name TEXAS LONGHORNS has become one of the best-known names in the world of college sports. UT holds the record for the most collegiate licensing royalties earned in a single year, and has been the top U.S. university in terms of sales of licensed products for the past four years. These products are sold throughout the United States – via retail stores, websites, and catalogs – by more than 500 licensees. Complainant highlights that FORBES recently valued UT’s football program at $119 million, ranking it as the nation’s most valuable.

Complainant states that UT uses the domain name as the primary website for its sports teams. The website at enjoys high traffic levels, averaging over 300,000 visits per month over the last year.

Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s UT marks and to its athletics website address. The Domain Name incorporates UT’s TEXAS mark in its entirety, merely tacking on the term “sports,” a generic or descriptive term likely to be associated with UT and its sports teams. Complainant argues that this is particularly true considering that UT uses and heavily promotes its website at . Internet users looking for UT’s athletics page are likely to be confused if they mistakenly employ the wrong generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) (“.org” instead of “.com”) and arrive at Respondent’s website.

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name is used in connection with a parking page displaying links with titles likely to be associated with Complainant or its products and services, such as “Texas Football,” “Texas Sports,” and “College basketball,” among others. Clicking on these links diverts users to third-party websites that appear to relate to UT but are not affiliated with Complainant. For example, clicking on the link “Texas football” leads to a monetized parking page with links titled, “Texas Longhorn Football” and “Texas Longhorns Football Tickets.” These links lead to advertisers not affiliated with, and often competitive with, UT.

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent presumably is paid a fee or commission when Internet users visit the website at , click on the various links likely to be associated with Complainant, and are diverted to third-party websites. Thus, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the UT Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and/or the links displayed on Respondent’s website. Complainant contends that Respondent’s attempt to capture Internet users seeking the Complainant, who employ the wrong gTLD (“.org” instead of “.com”), is evidence of use and registration in bad faith.

UT’s attorneys sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on February 11, 2010. The attorney for Respondent responded, refusing to transfer the Domain Name. Complainant’s attorneys responded on April 9, 2010, refuting Respondent’s position, and again requested transfer of the Domain Name. However, Respondent’s attorney did not respond to the second letter. Instead, Complainant states that Respondent has continued its infringing activity despite being given notice of UT’s trademark rights. Not only is the Domain Name itself highly likely to cause confusion, but Respondent also displays link titles on its website and linked monetized pages that are clear references to UT and its goods and services.

Complainant states that Respondent has also engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of others’ trademarks as Domain Names. Complainant cites fifteen prior UDRP decisions against Respondent and claims that these decisions show Respondent has registered domain names incorporating others’ well-known marks, in bad faith.

Respondent’s bad faith is thus evidenced by the fact that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the Domain Name; the Domain Name does not consist of the legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent; Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; Respondent has made no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of Complainant’s marks in a site accessible under the Domain Name; and Respondent’s Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s TEXAS mark.

B. Respondent

Respondent argues that there is no basis for transferring the Domain Name to Complainant. Respondent emphasizes that the Complaint should be denied, firstly, because Complainant’s trademarks – none of which are for the term “texas sports” – are not identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name. Complainant’s geographically descriptive mark for TEXAS does not give Complainant a monopoly on all terms incorporating “Texas,” the name of a U.S. state, regardless of whether the term contains a word for a good or service alleged to be covered by Complainant’s mark. Complainant’s suggestion that it has a right to the Domain Name containing the word “sports,” because its trademark covers the provision of “sporting events,” is overreaching. Complainant is essentially claiming that it is the only party entitled to use the name of the State of Texas in connection with sports or together with the word “sports.” Respondent asserts that Complainant is wrong on this. Everyone is lawfully permitted to use the name of the State of Texas in a descriptive manner, and such permitted use extends to domain names. In any event, Respondent argues that there is no confusing similarity between TEXAS and the Domain Name , based on the weakness of Complainant’s geographically descriptive mark and the narrow ambit of protection afforded as a result of that weakness. Generally, where a trademark incorporates a descriptive term, as in the present case, minor differences are sufficient to eliminate a finding of confusing similarity.

Moreover, Respondent contends that its registration of the Domain Name was in good faith and establishes its legitimate interest because “texas sports” is a geographically descriptive term, and such terms can be registered in a domain name on a first come, first-served basis. Respondent states that it registered the Domain Name because it was a geographically descriptive term to which it believed no party could claim exclusive rights. The Domain Name incorporates the descriptive term “texas sports,” which is composed of the two generic words “Texas” and “sports.” Complainant does not have a registered trademark for the term TEXAS SPORTS, but only has trademarks for the word TEXAS and other marks incorporating TEXAS.

Respondent states that it registered the Domain Name based solely on it being geographically descriptive (and not because of Complainant’s trademark), a position which is corroborated by the more than 60 other geographically descriptive domain names Respondent has registered which incorporate the name of the State of Texas, such as , , , , and . Such a pattern of registration supports Respondent’s legitimate interest.

Respondent also claims that it uses the Domain Name in a descriptive manner, hosting it with , a service which displays related pay-per-click (“PPC”) on the page such as “Texas Sports;” “Texas Football;” “Baseball schedule;” “Austin, Texas;” “Houston, Texas;” and “High School Sports.” As such, Complainant is incorrect in its allegation that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. The use of a domain name to post related PPC links has been found to establish a respondent’s legitimate interest under the Policy on numerous occasions, including with respect to such use of a domain name by the Respondent in this case.

Respondent further contends that it has not engaged in bad faith registration or use. Respondent affirmatively states that it registered the Domain Name because it incorporated a common descriptive term, and that Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant’s TEXAS mark when it registered the Domain Name. According to Respondent, there is absolutely no evidence Respondent registered the Domain Name with Complainant’s trademark in mind, or that it had even heard of Complainant or its trademark when it registered the Domain Name. Respondent emphasizes that Complainant has never had a registered trademark for TEXAS SPORTS. Had Respondent conducted a search at the web site of the USPTO, it would have found many trademarks incorporating the name of the State of Texas. There are currently 1,941 registered and pending U.S. trademarks which incorporate “Texas.” Respondent would have also found compelling support for its right to register the Domain Name based on its geographic descriptiveness. For example, the USPTO database identifies a trademark for TEXAS SPORTS on the Supplemental Register, which was abandoned in 1988. The fact the trademark was on the Supplemental Register is evidence that the term TEXAS SPORTS is descriptive, as only marks refused registration on descriptiveness grounds are eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register. More recently, in 2008, there was an attempt to register TEXAS SPORTS TS. The USPTO examiner again deemed the term TEXAS SPORTS to be geographically descriptive, and required the applicant to disclaim the exclusive right to use “Texas Sports.” Presently, the mark TEXAS SPORTS MAGAZINE is registered on the Supplemental Register, with “sports magazine” disclaimed. The USPTO also refused a trademark application for TEXAS SPORTS SANDS, on the grounds that the mark was geographically descriptive. Further evidence of the descriptiveness of the term TEXAS is that each of Complainant’s trademarks incorporating the word TEXAS were registered pursuant to Section 2(F) of the Trademark Act. This means TEXAS is not inherently distinctive, but Complainant’s marks were permitted because secondary meaning was alleged. The fact remains, regardless of Complainant’s trademark rights, that the term Texas as used by Respondent is the descriptive name of a U.S. state and Complainant, thus, cannot interfere with that use.

Respondent argues that Complainant does not have the exclusive right to use the term TEXAS in connection with sports, and it does not have the exclusive right to use TEXAS SPORTS, for which it has no trademark. In addition to TEXAS SPORTS MAGAZINE, there are other trademarks for the word TEXAS for goods and services related to sports, such as TEXAS BOWL and TEXAS STATE. Further evidence of Complainant’s lack of exclusive rights to TEXAS SPORTS comes from the 1.5 million third-party uses of the term evidenced by Google search results, including “Texas Sports Builder,” “Texas Sports Writers Association,” “Texas Sports Reach,” and “Texas Sports Hall of Fame.”

Respondent asserts its registration of the Domain Name was entirely in good faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name on March 4, 2006 – more than 4 years ago. Respondent urges that Complainant’s long delay in initiating this UDRP action raises the inference that Complainant did not believe Respondent had engaged in bad faith registration or use. There is no evidence that Respondent has used the Domain Name in bad faith. All links that have appeared on are auto-generated by the parking service, which utilizes a Yahoo! sponsored search feed. All of the links on the web site are related to the contextual meaning of the words in the domain name, i.e., “Texas” and “sports.” Links related to Complainant’s TEXAS LONGHORN trademark were unintended and, in any event, do not constitute a violation of Complainant’s trademarks. Links displayed for “Texan Long Horns” or “Long Horns” would naturally be expected on a web site referred to as , since the Texas Longhorns play a sport in Texas. While Respondent was not legally obligated to do so, following receipt of a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant, Respondent instructed to remove links containing the keyword “Longhorns.” This does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing under the Policy but, rather, an attempt to avoid a dispute with a trademark owner. In any event, the links were removed before initiation of these proceedings.

Respondent finally contends that it has not violated the Policy and that Complainant’s allegations constitute an abuse of the proceedings. Complainant is essentially arguing that it is the only party entitled to use the word “sports” with the word “Texas,” despite the fact that Complainant does not possess a trademark for the term TEXAS SPORTS. Complainant has used tactics that overreach the limited protection to which it is afforded in connection with its weak, geographically descriptive TEXAS mark. The fact that Complainant is located in Texas makes a finding of geographic descriptiveness irrefutable. According to Respondent, it is well-established under the UDRP that geographically descriptive trademarks do not entitle their owner to domain names containing identical or similar geographical terms. In fact, the mere registration of a geographically descriptive term, ipso facto, resolves the issues of bad faith registration and legitimate interest in Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, Respondent contends that in addition to denying the Complaint, the Panel should issue a decision finding that Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because there is absolutely no basis for this claim and Complainant should have so known.

C. Additional Submissions

In its Additional Submission, the Complainant presses its case by reiterating the arguments presented in the Complaint and responding to Respondent’s assertions. Complainant emphasizes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its TEXAS trademark and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, which is being used to this day in connection with a search directory page displaying links with titles likely to be associated with Complainant. Complainant further stresses that, despite Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights, Respondent continues to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the UT marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and/or the links displayed on Respondent’s website. Finally, Complainant argues that, although Respondent contends there can be no bad faith without proof that the Domain Name was registered to profit from Complainant’s trademark rights, in this case Respondent has continued its infringing activity despite being given notice of those rights. As the owner of the infringing Domain Name, Respondent is ultimately responsible for the content on the related website and could have easily removed offending pages, but has not done so.

Respondent, in its Additional Submission, seeks to refute Complainant’s allegations. Regarding Complainant’s arguments about confusing similarity, Respondent asserts that, without an additional modifier, consumers seeing the mark TEXAS will not think only about Complainant or its mark, but will think of the State of Texas. If the word “sports” is combined with the word Texas, consumers are not likely see the term as designating Complainant’s sports. Instead, they will see it as designating sports generally in connection with the State of Texas. In this regard, Respondent emphasizes that Complainant has referred to confusingly similarity with Complainant’s domain name , but Complainant has provided no evidence of common law rights or secondary meaning in that domain name, and any such argument would be frivolous because consumers do not associate Complainant exclusively with the term “Texas Sports.” Respondent reiterates that Complainant has never filed a trademark application for TEXAS SPORTS, and the USPTO has denied other attempts to register “TEXAS SPORTS” as a trademark due to geographic descriptiveness.

Moreover, Respondent states that it has not intended for its web site to display sponsored results related to Complainant’s services. The display of the links are controlled by Yahoo!’s technology, the advertisers bidding on keyword terms, and the particular search queries conducted by users. The results shown on Respondent’s web site are the same results that are displayed across the Yahoo! network when TEXAS FOOTBALL or TEXAS SPORTS is searched for, including on Complainant’s own web page. Accordingly, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to display PPC links related to the descriptive meaning of the Domain Name constitutes use of it in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services, thus establishing Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest. Finally, Respondent states that it did in fact remove links to “Long Horns” and “Texas Long Horns” from its web site after it received the cease and desist letter from Complainant. Respondent concludes that it did not target Complainant’s trademarks, and the key to this case is that the Domain Name is a geographically descriptive term to which Complainant does not possess a mark that is identical or confusingly similar.

FINDINGS
Complainant is the Texas State Board established for the purpose of governing The University of Texas System, which consists of highly regarded institutions of higher education and health institutions throughout the State of Texas.

The University of Texas at Austin is the Complainant’s flagship educational institution. In addition to providing educational services, UT actively participates in many collegiate sports, including football, baseball, basketball, cross-country, golf, rowing, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, and volleyball. UT’s sports teams have been referred to as the LONGHORNS since the adoption of UT’s mascot in 1916.

Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations, including the following:

• TEXAS: U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,231,407; 1,428,420; 1,426,639; 1,421,130; 1,424,077; 1,446,255; and 1,439,917.
• UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: U.S. Reg. No. 1,340,787.
• THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: U.S. Reg. No. 1,351,805.
• LONGHORNS: U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,231,408; 1,342,737; 1,450,737; 1,452,071; 1,454,864; and 1,456,574.
• TEXAS LONGHORNS: U.S. Reg. Nos. 3,665,961 and 3,665,962.

UT uses the marks TEXAS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, TEXAS LONGHORNS, LONGHORNS, and other marks that include these terms in connection with its sports teams.

UT operates a website for its athletics programs at .

The Domain Name was registered by Respondent on March 4, 2006.

DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In this case, however, the Panel considers that it need only address two of these points to reach its decision.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied when a complainant is able to prove two necessary elements: first, that the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second, that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark on which the complainant relies.

Here, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in several registered trademarks including TEXAS, TEXAS LONGHORNS, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, and LONGHORNS. However, Complainant has not specifically asserted, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that it has common law or registered trademark rights in the term “Texas Sports” or in its domain name, which is used in support of UT’s primary website for athletic activities. While the Domain Name, except for its top-level domain extension, is identical to Complainant’s domain name, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the trademarks on which Complainant relies in this case.

The Domain Name contains two words, “Texas” and “sports,” along with the top-level extension “.org.” Although TEXAS has been registered as a mark by Complainant, it is also a geographically descriptive term referring to the State of Texas and can be used in association with many other terms, some of which may lend a descriptive or distinctive element. For example, when combining “Texas” with the word “cities” as in “Texas cities,” the reference might be general – to the large urban centers located in the State of Texas. However, when using the term “Texas” with the word “Longhorns” as is “Texas Longhorns,” by contrast, the reference is quite specific: to Complainant’s athletic teams and their mascot. The Domain Name in this case does not contain the terms “University” or “Longhorns,” which comprise more distinctive element in Complainant’s marks and would restrict the possible reference to the Complainant. Instead, by joining the word “Texas” with the descriptive term “sports,” the impression is much closer to that created by “Texas cities.” That is, “Texas sports” refers to virtually any athletic activities regularly taking place in the State of Texas, not just to activities sponsored by Complainant. Complainant has not suggested that it has developed any secondary meaning in the phrase “Texas sports.” The Panel agrees with Respondent’s view that Internet users, upon seeing the word “Texas” in Respondent’s Domain Name in combination with the word “sports,” will read it as referencing sports generally in connection with the State of Texas, not as a term identifying Complainant or its athletic teams.

The Panel finds that where a trademark is comprised of a descriptive term, as in the present case where Complainant’s TEXAS mark also refers to the State of Texas, even small differences in the domain name might be sufficient to eliminate a finding of confusing similarity. Respondent has cited Tire Discounters, Inc. v. TireDiscounter.com, FA 679485 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 14, 2006), in which the complainant’s mark TIRE DISCOUNTERS differed by only one letter from the disputed domain name . Because the complainant’s mark was descriptive, the mark was deemed not confusingly similar to the domain name. In dismissing the complaint, the three-member panel stated: “Because the mark is merely descriptive, small differences matter. In the Internet context, consumers are aware that domain names for different websites are often quite similar and that small differences matter.” See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir. 2002). The omission of the letter “s” from the mark is one of those small differences that matters in this context.

Here, the difference is not just a single letter, but the addition of the descriptive word “sports,” which serves to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s TEXAS and other trademarks. Similarly, in Deer Valley Resort Company v. Intermountain Lodging and Reservation Center, FA 474344 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2005), the Panel determined that the complainant’s DEER VALLEY trademark was not confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, . The panel held that the respondent’s addition of the term “lodging” to the complainant’s DEER VALLEY mark in the domain name was sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Deer Valley panel also emphasized that it was guided by the principal that “the use of geographic terms as such in domain names or otherwise by third parties is generally possible despite a trademark registration,” citing Neusiedler Aktiengesellschaft v. Kulkarni, D2000-1769 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001).

In sum, the Panel considers that consumers and Internet users understand that “Texas Sports” is a descriptive term referring to sports in Texas, and will not necessarily assume that refers to Complainant simply because Complainant owns a TEXAS mark, which covers the presentation of sporting events.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel’s decision regarding lack of confusing similarity is further bolstered by the Panel’s finding that the Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Panel agrees with Respondent that there is no sufficient evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Name while targeting Complainant’s trademark. The Panel is persuaded that Respondent registered the Domain Name as part of its wide-spread effort to register many geographically related domain names. The fact that Respondent continued using the Domain Name after receiving notice of Complainant’s trademark rights is not evidence of bad faith, if Respondent was entitled to use the Domain Name in the first place and used it in a manner that was not abusive, which is the case here. Because the Domain Name is comprised of common descriptive terms, the Respondent was free to register and use them, so long as Respondent did not target the Complainant or its trademarks. See, e.g., Zero Int’l Holding v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000) (“Common words and descriptive terms are legitimately subject to registration as domain names on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis.”).

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Respondent contends that, in addition to denying the Complaint, the Panel should issue a decision finding that Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because there is no basis for the Complainant’s claim and Complainant should have known this.

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules requires the Panel to declare that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and as an abuse of the administrative proceeding if it finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or primarily to harass the domain name holder.

Thus, the Panel is required to form an opinion on the motivation of the Complainant in bringing the Complaint.

In the opinion of the Panel, the Complainant, at the time it filed the Complaint, was entitled to have regard to the fact that it had trademark rights in the term TEXAS, which comprised part of the Domain Name, covering college athletic and sporting events.

In addition, as the Complainant focused its case on Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in connection with a pay-per-click landing page site, it was entitled to have regard to the fact that there are numerous UDRP decisions in which such use by a respondent has been found to constitute bad faith use, particularly when the complainant has a distinctive trademark and has been targeted by the respondent.

The other factor that must be taken into account is that sometimes, in such cases, there is information in the possession of the respondent and it is not until the Complaint is filed and the respondent puts in its submission that the panel finds that the respondent has a clear-cut defence and finds in its favour, as the panel has found in the present case.

Accordingly, having regard to all the circumstances in the present case, although the Panel has found that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and that the domain name was not registered and used in bad faith, the Panel finds that this is not a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

DECISION
For all the above reasons, and having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Christopher S. Gibson, Panel Chair
Neil Anthony Brown, Honorable Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Esq., Panelists
Dated: June 25, 2010

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page

Sedo Weekly Sales Include Videodating.com and knowyouroptions.com at 50,000 each

Written on June 29th, 2010 by directnavigation3 shouts

Sedo Weekly Sales Include Videodating.com and knowyouroptions.com at 50,000 each. Videodating.com at 50k I understand, knowyouroptions.com at 50k I do not, so i’ll be interested in seeing what they do with it. I also think that textbooks.org was a nice buy.

Domain name Price Currency
.COMs
videodating.com 50000 USD
knowyouroptions.com 50000 USD
uspo.com 20000 USD
coa.com 16500 USD
keku.com 15000 USD
completecommerce.com 14000 USD
detektei.com 11000 EUR
saraiva.com 10000 USD
pcnames.com 10000 USD
realcopy.com 9500 USD
newrock.com 8400 USD
gaysoulmate.com 8000 USD
xaas.com 7810 USD
relian.com 7500 EUR
koffers.com 7000 EUR
fastapasta.com 6900 USD
nanai.com 5600 USD
santafevacationrentals.com 5280 USD
beq.com 5101 USD
hck.com 5001 USD
shakeria.com 5000 EUR
spotting.com 5000 EUR
1238.com 5000 USD
urano.com 4700 EUR
euq.com 4500 USD
viajesbarato.com 4000 USD
shopalike.com 4000 EUR
turnkeywebsite.com 4000 USD
leve.com 3999 USD
worldwidedating.com 3995 USD
thesisterhood.com 3750 USD
zeker.com 3600 EUR
coolrestaurants.com 3500 EUR
wintercraft.com 3450 USD
textking.com 3300 EUR
italyshop.com 3293 USD
gateaux.com 3100 EUR
kstar.com 3000 EUR
flightspace.com 2800 EUR
vipcars.com 2750 USD
elenza.com 2500 USD
edaps.com 2500 USD
kitendo.com 2500 EUR
opportunit.com 2500 USD
comoganardinero.com 2500 USD
racingmodels.com 2500 USD
afmag.com 2500 USD
justadrop.com 2488 USD
50m.com 2450 USD
ebooksite.com 2250 GBP
arcado.com 2150 USD
plattenspieler.com 2000 EUR
17w.com 2000 USD
123-business.com 2000 EUR
eboca.com 2000 EUR
123sex.com 2000 USD
sportoo.com 1888 USD
blackorange.com 1850 USD
italcapital.com 1800 USD
amazonrainforestherbs.com 1800 USD
wkgt.com 1770 USD
gonutrition.com 1750 USD
joulia.com 1600 USD
contactlensescanada.com 1599 USD
ciho.com 1550 USD
eco-life.com 1549 USD
look4help.com 1500 USD
nachfolge.com 1500 EUR
fuelfix.com 1500 USD
gizmobox.com 1500 USD
cannabissearch.com 1500 USD
rosaritobeachhotels.com 1500 USD
trekkingblogs.com 1500 EUR
mediabutler.com 1499 EUR
lovelotto.com 1480 EUR
woman4u.com 1450 EUR
allsend.com 1450 USD
amedu.com 1400 USD
mentefactura.com 1350 USD
sightseeingnyc.com 1320 USD
shopsolution.com 1310 EUR
jewelresort.com 1295 USD
vancouvercriminallawyers.com 1285 USD
wearefootball.com 1250 USD
thecloudchannel.com 1222 EUR
medicalsupplysuperstore.com 1200 USD
infominer.com 1200 USD
fototapete.com 1100 EUR
stromsparer.com 1100 EUR
achy.com 1100 USD
6xy.com 1010 EUR
hockeynet.com 1000 USD
safetorrents.com 1000 USD
lazytiger.com 1000 USD
primarycareathome.com 1000 USD
tebusco.com 1000 USD
physiciannet.com 1000 EUR
wealthsite.com 1000 USD
keenu.com 1000 USD
clonescripts.com 1000 EUR
proteinmilkshake.com 999 USD
shardsofglass.com 995 USD
kutman.com 995 USD
peoplescience.com 990 USD
reifenboerse.com 855 EUR
safeaid.com 850 USD
doctorq.com 833 EUR
warenwirtschaftssystem.com 820 EUR
alpinelabs.com 801 USD
transmoto.com 800 EUR
oneminutebusiness.com 800 USD
schulberatung.com 800 USD
e-g-o.com 800 EUR
keytar.com 800 USD
eutrucks.com 750 USD
cyberhood.com 750 USD
7106.com 750 USD
stormpreparation.com 750 USD
r1n.com 750 EUR
uk-trackdays.com 750 USD
wetdry.com 725 USD
sell-house.com 700 USD
holzvergaser.com 700 EUR
roadcyclists.com 700 USD
dragonplay.com 700 USD

CC TLDs
vermietung.de 23000 EUR
gezocht.nl 20000 EUR
cafe.de 15000 EUR
equip.me 15000 USD
hfk.de 12000 EUR
weights.co.uk 6610 GBP
americanholidays.co.uk 6500 GBP
seo.es 6000 EUR
ginseng.asia 5400 EUR
tech.tv 5000 USD
name.tv 4888 USD
wandmotive.de 4000 EUR
oesterreich-urlaub.de 3570 EUR
my-shirt.de 3400 EUR
aco.us 3350 USD
casamentos.pt 3000 USD
starseller.de 3000 EUR
iolo.de 2756 USD
kilfrost.cn 2500 EUR
caducee.fr 2500 EUR
leads.pro 2500 USD
versandhandelssoftware.de 2500 EUR
immobilienmakler.tv 2500 EUR
mappen24.de 2200 EUR
secondreality.de 2000 EUR
soja.eu 1950 EUR
rwt.ch 1900 EUR
garten-shop.de 1800 EUR
l.ai 1800 USD
betreuungsrecht.de 1800 EUR
office365.nl 1500 USD
wireimage.co.uk 1500 GBP
tupperwaren.de 1500 EUR
itec.ch 1500 EUR
kräutershop.de 1500 EUR
essig.eu 1499 EUR
privateunfallversicherung.de 1400 EUR
babycoach.de 1312 EUR
rockband.se 1300 USD
amdocs.co.uk 1299 GBP
llc.de 1250 EUR
initiative-mittelstand.de 1250 EUR
airconditioners.co.za 1250 USD
casinos.co.in 1200 GBP
discoverygroup.co.uk 1150 USD
rotlicht-jobs.de 1100 EUR
winportal.de 1099 EUR
sc.tv 1052 USD
xtb.fr 1000 EUR
yourbody.tv 1000 EUR
gesundheít.de 1000 EUR
anleger.tv 1000 EUR
sellcarforcash.co.uk 1000 GBP
vanity-rufnummer.de 1000 EUR
vanity-rufnummern.de 1000 EUR
advertisement.tv 1000 USD
komm4buy.de 1000 EUR
online-rabatt.de 1000 EUR
kosmetika.eu 1000 EUR
ve.dk 1000 USD
umtsflatrates.de 1000 EUR
ot.tv 1000 USD
rewards.me 950 USD
mitternachtsruf.de 900 EUR
scylla.de 880 EUR
fotoversand.eu 855 EUR
knd.at 850 EUR
futurezone.be 800 USD
carbon.lu 800 EUR
picopsu.de 800 EUR
pico-psu.de 800 EUR
moog.co.in 800 USD
aquapura.co.uk 800 GBP
sportivity.de 780 EUR
autobahnradio.de 750 EUR
heat.me 750 GBP
leaseoffice.nl 750 EUR
glühwein.ch 725 EUR
thecube.it 700 EUR
pigments.eu 700 EUR

OTHER TLDs
Portfolio Sale 25200 USD
gwp.org 9888 USD
medikamente.net 8430 EUR
textbooks.org 6100 USD
universallifeinsurance.org 5200 USD
privatestudentloan.net 5100 USD
kobo.net 5000 USD
privateloanconsolidation.net 4400 USD
jee.org 4000 USD
sales.biz 4000 USD
compensationclaims.net 4000 GBP
musclebuilding.net 3500 USD
hotelfinder.net 3200 USD
availability.net 3000 USD
accidentclaim.net 2750 GBP
compensationclaim.net 2750 GBP
carehomes.net 2500 GBP
rpo.net 2450 USD
giftstore.net 2099 USD
coffeeshops.net 1800 USD
flightfinder.net 1800 USD
agaricus.org 1700 USD
condos.info 1600 EUR
sparkonto.org 1590 EUR
lasvegasconventions.net 1550 USD
ffm.info 1501 EUR
nikon.org 1500 USD
betnet.net 1470 USD
poser.net 1382 USD
tablet-pc.org 1333 EUR
reizdarm.net 1250 EUR
spoons.net 1250 USD
luxushotels.org 1175 EUR
hashtag.info 1150 USD
eiweiss.org 1100 EUR
umschuldung.info 1050 EUR
brawny.net 1000 USD
itaxi.mobi 1000 USD
gesund.mobi 1000 EUR
doorlopendkrediet.net 1000 EUR
whiplashclaims.net 1000 GBP
immigrationlawyer.info 1000 USD
onlineclinic.net 1000 USD
magnesium.info 999 EUR
greatstuff.biz 995 USD
schals.net 990 EUR
immobilienkredite.net 900 EUR
civilization.org 800 USD
snackfood.net 799 USD
badcreditpaydayloans.net 751 USD
fearofflying.org 750 USD
datebase.net 700 USD
lawnservice.net 700 USD
nef.net 700 USD

Judge Rules Google’s YouTube Not Infringing on Intellectual Property

Written on June 24th, 2010 by directnavigationone shout

A judge ruled yesterday that Google was not quickly of copyright infringement for earning revenue off copyrighted material on their site. The judgement said that Goggle was protected against Viacom’s claim since they were protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision.
“Those provisions generally protect a Web site from liability for copyrighted material uploaded by its users as long as the operator of the site takes down the material when notified by its rightful owner that it was uploaded without permission.

“Viacom, which sued Google in 2007 and accused it of copyright infringement after tens of thousands of Viacom videos were uploaded to the site, had argued that Google was not entitled to those protections because it had deliberately turned a blind eye and profited from rampant piracy on YouTube.

Google and groups supporting Internet companies hailed the decision, saying it would protect not only YouTube but also other sites that host user-generated content.

“This is a victory for the Internet and for the people who use it,” said Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, in an interview. “The decision will let a whole new generation of creators and artists share their work online.”

Mr. Walker said the decision “was an affirmation of the emerging legal framework and ratifies the rules we have all been living under.”

But Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon, said it would appeal the ruling, which it said was fundamentally flawed.

“Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industry,” Michael Fricklas, Viacom’s general counsel, wrote in a blog post. Mr. Fricklas said that before YouTube put in place a filtering mechanism to more easily detect copyright infringement, the company had built itself on pirated material and sold itself to Google for $1.65 billion.

“YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars,” Mr. Fricklas said. Legal experts said that the ruling blessed YouTube’s practices for dealing with copyrighted material, as well as those of many other sites that handle user-generated content in a similar fashion.

“The ruling should give online service providers a lot of comfort that copyright owners aren’t going to be able to force them to change their behavior or put them on the hook for problems that their users create,” said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law.”

Most importantly, it seems that if you take down copyrighted material after it’s been posted, you are fine.

“But Michael S. Kwun, a lawyer at Keker & Van Nest who previously worked at Google, said the decision would ensure that Internet companies were not legally required to develop such a system and could expect legal protection as long as they took down content when copyright holders complained. “I have no idea how much money YouTube spent on developing its content ID system, but if that was required for any new start-up, you wouldn’t see any,” Mr. Kwun said.”

Full Story » Filed under Development Tags:

Major Adult Affiliate Program Closes Down

Written on June 23rd, 2010 by directnavigationone shout

One of my readers recently sent me information about WEGcash closing down their affiliate program. From what I am told it was one of the more popular adult affiliate programs. I am told that there are many other profitable affiliate companies offering adult services so I think it is a company issue and not an industry wide problem. Here is the letter that was forwarded to me regarding Wegcash:

Today’s communication with our affiliates comes after much deliberation, as well as a heavy heart. After 10 years, and millions of dollars in affiliate payouts, WEGCash has decided that the continuation of the affiliate program is no longer sustainable. Therefore, we will no longer be accepting referrals effective May 21st 2010, at 4PM PST.

The reasons, many of which are obvious to all of us, revolve around the decline in membership revenue. The continued proliferation of free adult videos has spawned a market which does not support an affiliate program. This communication should in no way be interpreted as an industry, political or ethical stance, nor should it be deemed dispiritedness; rather, we choose to look at this as a time to embrace the future.

While our company is closing one door, we are working steadfastly on new opportunities. While we could all engage in the revisionist history of “what ifs,” events leading up to the current free tube models aren’t negotiable; we are better served focusing on the future. We also feel that energy is better served realizing the true successes that our affiliate program brought to us, and to our thousands of wonderful affiliates (without whom we would never have achieved the success we did).

The gravity of this announcement is in no way lost on our company’s staff, from executives and programmers, to its owners. The Wegcash brand was conceived by two passionate and driven entrepreneurs. Throughout the years, its continued prosperity is attributable to the hard working staff members, past and present, who stayed late, came in early, and passionately put their heart and soul into the product. It is also very much attributable to the thousands of affiliates that entrusted our brand with their business.

While today undoubtedly is revealing in terms of the current market, it’s also the lore for the successful future.

Our sincerest thanks to each and every one of you for the past decade of fruition,

WEGCash

I’m Booked for DomainFest 2011 – Are You?

Written on June 22nd, 2010 by directnavigation4 shouts

When I spoke yesterday with my contact at Oversee, I told them again how great Domainfest 2010 in LA was. The speakers, networking, hotel and parties were all first class. They told me I would soon be hearing about Domainfest 2011. So one day later the Press Releases comes out and I am extremely excited to see that they are continuing with the great formula that worked last year. I just booked the hotel. You should also book now if you want to stay there as it sold out last year.

Here is the full Press Release:

Press Release:
Largest domain conference sets date for 2011.

Oversee.net’s flagship DOMAINfest Global conference is moving back a week this year to the first week of February. The conference will take place February 1-3, 2011 and will again be held at the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica, California.

Hotel reservations for the event are already available. If it’s anything like last year, the hotel will sell out in a hurry even though the entire hotel is reserved for the event.

Early bird admission is $995 and available through September 30, 2010.

Last year’s event attracted about 650 people including domain investors, service providers, and lawyers. It was highlighted by a night at The Getty and a private charity fundraising party at the Playboy Mansion.

There are two additional DOMAINfest conferences between now and the main event in February. In August there will be a one day “power networking” event in New York City, and the company will hold a European show in Prague this October.

SmartName Shuts Down Smartname Classic- The End of An Era

Written on June 3rd, 2010 by directnavigation7 shouts

A week or so before June 1st, I received a call from Namemedia telling me that Smartname Classic, the last system that Ari and I used when we ran Smartname, was being eliminated. I was told that all clients still operating on that system would move to current Smartname system which most of their clients were on anyway.
Over 3 years have come and gone since we sold Smartname. Ari and I have no affiliation with the current company, but seeing that system shut down was a very sad day for me. It brought back memories of what we had built, the friends that we made and how we changed the value of domains. It was great sharing ideas with other domainers on a daily basis. It seems that most parking companies have employees which are not domainers thereby unable to feel the bleeding of revenue in the past few years as we felt it. It’s sort of like me telling my wife, that during labor that I understand what she is going through. No way in hell could that be the case.

Before we started Smartname, there was no such thing as domain parking. When people started to realize how much revenue could be produced from domains, the world caught on that domains were a great investment.

While I still try to speak with many of our old clients and friends, I miss the constant interaction on a daily basis. Who knows, maybe it’s time to come out of retirement.

How I turned a domain making less than a dollar a day into one making 18k per year.

Written on June 2nd, 2010 by directnavigation11 shouts

Recently, I took a long look at my domains. I ran various analysis patterns. Some names have dropped in revenue while other names are actually making more money than they did last year at the same time. As i went over the lists, one domain popped out. This domain used to be a constant earner, but had dropped down over the past few months to practically nothing. I decided to investigate. I called the parking company with which I had this name parked. They were at a loss, or more precise, I was at a loss and wanted to know if they can think of any reasons that would help me get this name to perform better. It turned out that the name been banned by the primary PPC. Banning a name can be for a variety of reasons, some of which are just stupid. (FYI – You can appeal a ban and many times the ban will be taken off. This was not done in this situation.) After it was banned, the parking company had put the name on a secondary feed, but the revenue from that feed was terrible for this name. I decided to try a third feed. Guess what? The name is making over $50 per day. That an $18,000 per year improvement.
I suggest when you look at your domain revenue reports, see if there has been a large drop in any one name. If so, make sure it has not been banned from the parking companies primary feed provider. If it has, make sure you try a different feed provider.

Full Story » Filed under PPC Tags:

Sedo Weekly Sales – Omusic.com sells for $45,000, homeequityloan.net at $38000, Shoes.tv 18000K

Written on June 1st, 2010 by directnavigationone shout

Here’s the weekly Sales figures for Sedo. The top sale was Omusic.com at $ 45K. I was not shocked to see the $ 38k for homeequityloan.net. Good key words and .net sales and offers have been up. Shoes.tv is an interesting buy at $ 18k.

The complete list follows:

Domain name Price Currency

.COMs
omusic.com 45000 USD
autocircle.com 25000 USD
mobigo.com 15000 EUR
youcloud.com 11800 USD
aulani.com 10000 USD
ijaw.com 10000 USD
meitian.com 9999 EUR
etools.com 9900 USD
wwdating.com 9888 USD
thehousecafe.com 8600 USD
pariez-plus.com 8500 EUR
pcbooster.com 6385 USD
htj.com 6000 EUR
desertpoker.com 5500 USD
bestellen.com 5260 EUR
e-ways.com 5000 EUR
knowledgeworker.com 5000 USD
carbonindex.com 4900 USD
rentalsinrome.com 4700 EUR
taxrite.com 4500 USD
millwallonline.com 4500 GBP
feima.com 4188 USD
rigor.com 4000 USD
netbettv.com 3750 USD
claddingmaterials.com 3500 USD
baseballgame.com 3500 USD
yjhy.com 3000 EUR
undid.com 3000 USD
motrade.com 3000 EUR
digihome.com 3000 USD
saekaphen.com 3000 USD
sutao.com 2550 USD
pentaxforum.com 2500 USD
cbfront.com 2500 USD
fairtravel.com 2500 EUR
realestateparty.com 2500 EUR
bestweddingspeeches.com 2499 USD
skimode.com 2400 EUR
megatudo.com 2400 USD
destinationrv.com 2250 USD
add-link.com 2245 USD
exxy.com 2220 EUR
360registry.com 2200 USD
enlis.com 2200 USD
zofo.com 2050 USD
jbww.com 2000 USD
txcs.com 2000 EUR
desibel.com 2000 USD
herrenfrisuren.com 2000 USD
dodb.com 2000 USD
ourtutor.com 2000 USD
fgppr.com 2000 USD
wheaty.com 1800 USD
sevenbaby.com 1750 USD
studentcoupons.com 1750 USD
automationblog.com 1600 USD
1ad.com 1551 USD
limousinen.com 1550 EUR
cinemaalademande.com 1550 EUR
bzing.com 1500 USD
medicalpremium.com 1500 USD
snabid.com 1500 EUR
financinghealth.com 1500 USD
0333.com 1500 USD
4443.com 1500 USD
alphabuy.com 1500 USD
pesoideal.com 1350 USD
algaculture.com 1325 USD
whatsnew.com 1325 GBP
cdvd.com 1269 USD
hotel-leipzig.com 1250 EUR
discountautosupply.com 1250 USD
homeflip.com 1250 USD
accurix.com 1250 USD
greetland.com 1200 EUR
taira.com 1200 USD
runwayrack.com 1200 USD
campmanager.com 1200 USD
coquines.com 1150 EUR
gartenarbeit.com 1143 EUR
hormonefree.com 1100 USD
twilightfans.com 1065 USD
y80.com 1050 USD
dsoftware.com 1050 USD
schoolyear.com 1050 USD
usedvan.com 1050 USD
3dpornvideo.com 1000 EUR
phim-film.com 1000 USD
moshigames.com 1000 USD
great-content.com 1000 USD
immigration411.com 1000 USD
kitchencooked.com 1000 USD
sellhousequickly.com 1000 USD
live-longer.com 1000 USD
vijia.com 1000 USD
padsync.com 1000 USD
sachwerte.com 999 EUR
titanads.com 999 USD
rvpartswarehouse.com 995 USD
papiervert.com 950 EUR
tv-search.com 950 EUR
tvcrowd.com 900 USD
moviearena.com 900 USD
chinesecoin.com 900 USD
affiliatemarketingcompanies.com 875 USD
8384.com 850 USD
bigcheer.com 850 USD
q-i.com 802 USD
lacosecha.com 800 EUR
agrotourismus.com 800 EUR
pennyscallan.com 800 USD
cctm.com 800 EUR
leadership-excellence.com 800 EUR
idconfirm.com 800 USD
akagroup.com 800 USD
paardekooper.com 750 USD
farmille.com 750 USD
hottyfinder.com 750 USD
howtowriteabio.com 750 USD
rentmystuff.com 750 USD
familyliesure.com 750 USD
z-l.com 702 USD
freeonlinegames24.com 701 EUR
cocobello.com 700 EUR
adanna.com 700 USD
moviehd.com 700 EUR
bestinsuranceplan.com 700 USD
antiquités.com 700 USD
lawissues.com 700 USD

cc.TLDs
shoes.tv 18000 USD
traiteurs.fr 10000 EUR
onlinecasinos.us 9999 USD
diamondengagementrings.co.uk 9975 GBP
shops.ch 9000 EUR
s.co.za 8500 USD
better.co.uk 7200 GBP
giochiamo.it 6000 EUR
brokers.asia 5000 USD
inoxpa.co.uk 4500 EUR
rakeback.cn 4500 USD
steuern.eu 4325 EUR
roboter.at 4000 EUR
snapstore.nl 4000 EUR
epc.be 3500 EUR
winterbekleidung.de 3300 EUR
gewichtswesten.de 3200 EUR
kartengenerator.de 3000 EUR
gewässerhaftpflicht&gewässerhaftpflichtversicherung.de 2750 EUR
welpenkauf.de 2500 EUR
kidswear.de 2500 EUR
gartenarbeit.de 2500 EUR
malta.ch 2500 EUR
antitranspirant.de 2500 EUR
sottocosto.it 2400 EUR
geschaeftsideen.de 2300 EUR
potters.co.uk 2200 GBP
aktiencharts.eu 2200 EUR
bubbleroom.co.uk 2100 GBP
omnivision.de 2050 EUR
firmenlogos.de 2000 EUR
facedocument.com.ar 2000 USD
sex.st 2000 USD
stellengesuche.tv 2000 EUR
uebernachtung.de 2000 EUR
walter-schuhe.de 2000 EUR
askyourneighbour.co.uk 1950 GBP
fuergamer.de 1800 EUR
tratos.eu 1750 EUR
dm.tv 1750 USD
fussballsocken.de 1600 EUR
mensch-gegen-maschine.de 1500 EUR
edreams.se 1500 EUR
pinnaclesports.de 1500 USD
yacht.sg 1500 EUR
elektrofahrrad.eu 1500 EUR
wireless.eu 1450 EUR
glueckauf-moers.de 1400 EUR
youthhostels.asia 1400 USD
casablanca.tv 1399 USD
itaxi.de 1312 EUR
theknot.co.uk 1300 USD
debuyer.de 1250 EUR
cosmetic.eu 1250 EUR
espressamenteilly.pl 1240 EUR
espressamenteilly.com.pl 1240 EUR
verzekeringvergelijk.nl 1200 EUR
yourid.nl 1175 EUR
archive.tv 1100 USD
werkblad.nl 1051 EUR
sabian.nl 1050 EUR
ouch.co.za 1050 USD
coded.co.uk 1050 GBP
manwithvan.co.uk 1040 GBP
juste.fr 1000 EUR
inkclub.es 1000 EUR
coso.it 1000 EUR
baer.im 1000 USD
snowboard24.de 1000 EUR
cloudservices.de 1000 EUR
intermind.us 1000 USD
doughnuts.eu 1000 GBP
psykoterapi.eu 1000 EUR
duet.me 1000 USD
haushalttipps.de 990 EUR
bargain.tv 950 USD
gafasdesol.com.es 950 EUR
casino.as 950 USD
doorman.us 950 USD
pickupartist.de 950 EUR
rabatto.de 910 EUR
viti.de 885 EUR
bingochat.co.uk 855 GBP
sextoy.eu 850 EUR
tv-apps.de 850 EUR
treppen.tel 800 EUR
toronto.ch 800 EUR
skeip.de 800 EUR
asiatische-lebensmittel.de 800 EUR
cfds.asia 800 USD
yalla.co.uk 800 USD
stilfest.de 770 EUR
metservice.co.uk 759 GBP
jurway.de 750 EUR
beschwerdemanagement.eu 750 EUR
whiteshirts.co.uk 750 GBP
airporttv.de 750 EUR
geschenke-trends.de 750 EUR
golfschweiz.ch 710 EUR
hotelclub.co.in 700 EUR
miet-recht.de 700 EUR

OTHER TLDs
homeequityloan.net 38000 USD
coupons.info 17600 USD
12.net 13500 USD
vinylsiding.net 10000 USD
lte.org 9888 USD
balancetransfercreditcards.org 5750 USD
pflegeversicherung.net 4999 EUR
4×4.net 4500 GBP
wahrsagen.net 3500 EUR
englishgrammar.org 3000 USD
newsletter.info 2800 USD
akiba.net 2400 USD
further.info 2200 EUR
07.org 2000 EUR
frisuren.info 1999 EUR
naturstein.biz 1950 EUR
jackpotparty.net 1850 EUR
highspeedinternetaccess.net 1675 USD
buergerentlastungsgesetz.org 1600 EUR
frozen.info 1500 USD
yeastinfection.info 1500 USD
vibratoren.net 1400 EUR
cheap-insurance.org 1400 USD
brocantes.net 1400 EUR
privatinsolvenz.org 1300 EUR
228.net 1250 USD
managementjobs.net 1200 USD
respublica.org 1200 USD
oyunlar1.net 1111 USD
expenses.net 1105 USD
ulp.org 1100 USD
71.biz 1074 USD
ökostrom.info 1050 EUR
forward-darlehen.net 1000 EUR
unified-communications.org 1000 EUR
banen.org 1000 EUR
motorcycle-parts.net 1000 USD
plattenspieler.net 1000 EUR
phillyrealestate.net 1000 USD
midtown.info 1000 USD
bathroomvanity.org 899 USD
spannbettlaken.net 890 EUR
fad.info 850 EUR
hotelreview.net 800 USD
approval.net 800 USD
salesleads.info 800 USD
tierpension.net 795 EUR
idio.net 755 USD
bettor.org 750 USD
mietwagenpreisvergleich.org 750 EUR
beschwerdemanagement.org 720 EUR
bestonlinecolleges.net 700 USD
cosmeticos.net 700 USD
quartier.info 700 EUR