Devisen.De at 55930 EUR Leads Sedo’s Weekly Sales

Last week Sedo kept busy. The highest domains bought were devisen.de @ 55930EUR and magazyny.pl 33000EUR. Outdoorfountains.com at 22000 USDled the .com sales. Here is the complete Sedo list.

Domain name Price Currency

.COMs
outdoorfountains.com 22000 USD
hoppin.com 20000 USD
globallyyours.com 20000 EUR
xmg.com 12000 USD
opedia.com 9500 USD
saray.com 9000 USD
renessa.com 9000 USD
netnordic.com 8000 EUR
brazilianfood.com 6500 USD
truebalance.com 6000 USD
torrentino.com 5010 EUR
vitaminad.com 5000 EUR
global-energy.com 5000 USD
alcina.com 5000 EUR
onebet.com 4850 USD
gboy.com 4500 USD
stolzenburg.com 3950 USD
bizlab.com 3900 USD
teendrugrehab.com 3800 USD
internationalbusinesscorporation.com 3500 USD
myh2o.com 3250 USD
biglead.com 3200 USD
saintlouishotels.com 3000 GBP
cybercops.com 3000 USD
systec.com 3000 EUR
rightroom.com 3000 GBP
e-merging.com 3000 USD
woont.com 3000 USD
gratisspelletjes.com 3000 EUR
madmums.com 3000 GBP
kolt.com 2955 USD
crazyflights.com 2850 USD
timelocker.com 2788 USD
happysleep.com 2750 USD
patiofurniturehome.com 2700 USD
crystallics.com 2700 USD
americaedu.com 2700 USD
mmcall.com 2530 USD
purchasecontrol.com 2500 USD
shapeyourlife.com 2500 USD
stoppy.com 2500 GBP
abovegroundtanks.com 2400 USD
fotomodels.com 2400 EUR
specl.com 2200 USD
conquering.com 2200 USD
smallthings.com 2050 USD
cafefactory.com 2000 EUR
moviei.com 2000 USD
depilator.com 2000 USD
local-seo.com 2000 USD
injurydatabase.com 1888 USD
beclinic.com 1806 EUR
local-web.com 1800 USD
smspoint.com 1800 USD
aminosäuren.com 1730 EUR
eenergytraders.com 1688 USD
shikikin.com 1600 USD
ldsbookstore.com 1600 USD
braincrazy.com 1551 EUR
assembliesunlimited.com 1550 USD
jmpnet.com 1500 USD
justmove.com 1500 GBP
xymos.com 1500 USD
ict4me.com 1490 USD
i3design.com 1400 USD
6272.com 1351 USD
clickwish.com 1350 USD
condorproperties.com 1300 GBP
greenhousesource.com 1250 USD
workhard.com 1250 USD
classactionclaims.com 1216 USD
stickup.com 1200 USD
queanunciar.com 1200 EUR
choox.com 1200 USD
101carparts.com 1200 USD
potager.com 1200 USD
hempnation.com 1200 USD
kohsamuirealestate.com 1200 EUR
eonlinecasino.com 1150 USD
helpseniors.com 1134 USD
teamche.com 1100 USD
landscapelightingusa.com 1099 USD
repair24.com 1000 USD
videomikroskope.com 1000 EUR
odobo.com 1000 USD
handwerkerscout.com 1000 USD
funstyle.com 1000 USD
consumerville.com 1000 USD
mycamlive.com 1000 USD
redcurve.com 1000 USD
auditas.com 1000 USD
restschuldversicherung.com 999 EUR
texasassetprotection.com 999 USD
alljewels.com 999 USD
ttvm.com 995 USD
abcgrow.com 945 USD
fax-service.com 928 EUR
universalchild.com 900 EUR
landryconsulting.com 900 USD
clouddistribution.com 880 USD
picketline.com 875 USD
myusic.com 875 USD
ubermarketing.com 840 EUR
ausblick.com 800 EUR
reciproc.com 800 USD
chemhome.com 800 USD
xthai.com 800 USD
3drenditions.com 755 USD
bijverdienen.com 750 EUR
myfaithbook.com 750 USD
mobilehometrader.com 750 USD
gamblecasinos.com 750 USD
celebritygarbage.com 750 USD
auto-magazin.com 710 EUR
alertica.com 700 USD

CC TLDS
devisen.de 55930 EUR
magazyny.pl 33000 EUR
secret.de 16000 EUR
eurojackpot.de 15000 EUR
onlinecasino.hk 10000 USD
star.me 10000 EUR
disrupt.co.uk 10000 USD
booking.kr 6700 USD
freelancer.cn 6500 GBP
jeux-internet.be 5000 EUR
bewerbungsforum.de 5000 EUR
liveradio.eu 4800 EUR
trainershop.de 4500 EUR
mietkautionsversicherung.de 4444 EUR
wandhalter.de 4250 EUR
reiseland-tuerkei-info.de 4099 EUR
tdw.de 3990 EUR
sciencedaily.nl 3890 USD
wta.cn 3500 USD
wiggle.es 3250 EUR
clubpoker.us 3150 USD
mer-morte.fr 3000 EUR
chrono24.cn 3000 EUR
infos-deutschland.de 3000 EUR
gyrocopter.ch 2500 EUR
bäume.ch 2250 EUR
showbiz.de 2250 EUR
studies.co.za 2200 USD
boss.tv 2100 USD
hägele.de 2000 EUR
tragschrauber.ch 2000 EUR
institute.co.za 2000 USD
flexi90.de 1600 EUR
orthofix.de 1563 EUR
3x.org 1560 USD
geschenke.tv 1500 EUR
betriebliches-gesundheitsmanagement.de 1500 EUR
biker.co 1500 EUR
hire.tv 1428 USD
cleantec.de 1310 EUR
schauspieler.eu 1250 EUR
businessprint.de 1248 EUR
cruzverde.es 1200 EUR
you.do 1200 GBP
glassolutions.co.uk 1175 EUR
martindale.co.uk 1150 GBP
onlinedruck24.de 1100 EUR
gunsforsale.us 1100 USD
alu-gartenmoebel.de 1100 EUR
airplanes.fr 1000 EUR
hypnoseschule.ch 1000 EUR
bns.ch 1000 EUR
virtualtrainer.de 1000 EUR
kredit-vergleich.eu 1000 EUR
lachgas.eu 1000 EUR
955.de 1000 EUR
toky.it 999 EUR
samovar.us 990 EUR
spaceman.tv 990 USD
kurzhantel.de 950 EUR
cora.tv 950 USD
kaufen.co 920 EUR
schwabengarten.de 900 EUR
gilbert.tv 900 USD
moebelshop-online.de 850 EUR
gewichtsmanschette.de 800 EUR
difh.de 800 EUR
on-top.de 800 EUR
coupondealer.de 800 EUR
lasercutting.eu 799 EUR
hypothekenzinsen.eu 799 EUR
luisdelolmo.es 750 EUR
ixxi.eu 750 EUR
printingpartners.de 750 EUR
chandler.tv 750 USD
dentale.de 719 EUR
profile.in 710 USD

OTHER TLDS
mesotheliomalawsuit.org 10000 USD
tfg.mobi 5000 USD
poker-gratis.net 4999 EUR
cxc.net 4000 USD
e-energy.net 3800 USD
vacationsrental.org 3500 EUR
eisenmangel.org 3500 EUR
end.net 3000 EUR
eisenmangel.net 2500 EUR
andalucia.biz 2500 EUR
likeme.org 2400 EUR
hoteller.org 1800 EUR
icme.org 1750 USD
newsit.net 1688 USD
discounthotel.org 1000 USD
helpi.net 1000 EUR
texasenergy.net 988 USD
review.info 925 GBP
fvma.org 900 USD
boca.org 869 USD
flatratevergleich.net 810 EUR
jonesbeach.info 800 USD
rollstuehle.net 800 USD
nizza.net 800 EUR
camisas.org 799 USD
wpti.org 750 USD

Own a 1 Letter CCTLD For As Low AS $1,000

Rick Latona is having an auction that has 25 letter .GL’s which ech name starting at just $1,000. .Gl is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet for Greenland. It’s tempting. All of Ricks Auctions can be found at :
http://www.proxibid.com/asp/AuctionsByCompany.asp?ahid=2705

Domainfest Extended Auction Shows Actual Reserves

The Domainfest extended auction ends on Wednesday. It includes domains that were for sale in the live auction that did not meet reserve along with other high quality domains. At the live auction, the domains reserve was listed in a range. If you go to the online auction, you will see the actual reserve. Many times in the past, domains that did not sell in the live auction sold at or just after the extended auction, sometimes for even higher prices. The 20 domains with the highest reserves are listed below.

xxx.com
$8,235,300

patents.com
$7,352,950

stocks.com
$3,900,000

thehamptons.com
$2,352,950

directoryassistance.com
$1,764,710

physicians.com
$1,764,710

reactors.com
$1,470,590

alcohol.com
$1,411,770

cable.com
$1,200,000

assurance.com
$1,176,480

byowner.com
$1,176,480
exchanger.com
$1,176,480

grant.com
$1,176,480

program.com

quotes.com
$1,176,480

testing.com
$1,176,480

customs.com
$941,180

rate.com
$888,890

guaranteed.com
$882,360

bruins.com
$823,530

To see the complete list go to https://www.snapnames.com/store/extended.action?ig=585#store;storeName=extended

One of The Most Amusing Domain Offers That I Have Ever Received

I am currently wrapping a long vacation. We traveled to Boston, Ireland and the Adirondicks. This week i am driving my son to college. i hadn’t planned on posting until after Labor day but the email I had received from someone in England was so enjoyable, It must be shared.

I have received emails offers for domains in the past. Some of the offers have been fair, others not so. I thought that I had heard every possible story. Many have told me they are students doing a senior project. A few described themselves as “mom and pop” stores just trying to start a website. A few of these traced back to either venture capital guys, domainers and in one case someone that had just sold his last “mom and pop” store for over 300 million USD.

Here is the email. Please let me know what you think or share some the crazy offers that you have recieved in the past.

“Thanks for getting back to me Larry,
with 14 years experience in web design and many successful domain transfers on behalf of my clients, please allow me to make the following assessment.

Webarchive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:// .com shows that the ‘ .com’ domain hasn’t had anything but a collection of advertising links on it for 9 years, which I guess is a use of sorts. Those should create some kind of return, unless the registrar that has your domain parked is publishing those links, earning themselves on the ‘click-throughs’ and charging you per year registration fees – in which case its just been a cost for 9 years to you and company?

a. If that is a fair assessment, on that basis, at what price would you be interested in off-loading a negative asset?
b. If I’m wrong, what is its return to you per year and we could work a price of that?

On agreement, how would you like to go about transfering the domain?

Keen get your feedback on this and I hope we can setup a fair deal all round. Feel free to call me during UK business hours.

Regards,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx + art direction + design”

The Best Domain Auction In Years To Be In NY on August 18th

I think this is the first public auction in years that has attracted the quality of domain names listed here. I have to congratulate Monte and Moniker on putting this list together.
Here is the press release. Please comment below:

Premium Names Available for Bidding

The Moniker live auction includes a broad selection of premium domains as well as names across all price points. Following the Moniker auction, SnapNames will host an online auction that will run through Wednesday, August 25 at 5 p.m. US Eastern time.

The complete catalog can be found at:
http://domainauctions.moniker.com/2010/DOMAINfest-New-York.

Premium domains include:

Rate.com
Quotes.com
Stocks.com
StockQuotes.com
Cable.com
Reggae.com
Patents.com
ByOwner.com 1-800-ByOwner®
Artist.com
BigApple.com
Invitro.com
XXX.com
Alcohol.com
Testing.com
Voters.com
Partner.com
Lawsuits.com

“Recent domain name sales, such as Slots.com, Photo.com, and Dating.com, demonstrate that businesses of all sizes, from start-ups to mature corporations, are now embracing keyword-rich domain names as a core strategy to build their brands,” said Monte Cahn, founder of Moniker. “In fact, most of these recent premium domain names were acquired by businesses for the purpose of developing and increasing the value of their e-commerce sites.”

“These successes were enabled partly by the enhanced SnapNames and Moniker platform,” said Craig Snyder, General Manager of the SnapNames and Moniker. “We’re able to reach global buyers and sellers in a fast, safe and easy way.”

Pre-Bidding for Moniker Live Auction
Pre-bids may be submitted on any domain listed in the auction until Aug 18, 11:00 am US Eastern time. The highest bid for each domain will then become the starting bid in the live auction. All live auction pre-bidders will be notified via email of their position in the auction along with instructions for joining the live and extended auction.

To participate in the pre-bidding process and learn more about the auction, please visit http://www.moniker.com/dfauction

SnapNames Online Auction
Bidders not attending the live auction can watch the auction and submit bids in real-time via a free online live auction system powered by SnapNames Live™ technology. Interested bidders may also submit an absentee bid form to the auctioneer or sign up for telephone proxy bidding.

The online auction will run for a full week, starting Wednesday, August 18 at 3:15 p.m. US Eastern time to Wednesday, August 25 at 5 p.m. US Eastern time. For more information, including details on how to submit an absentee bid or bid via telephone proxy, visit:
http://www.moniker.com/dfauction

DOMAINfest NYC Power Networking Event
The Moniker Live Auction on August 18th is part of DOMAINfest’s NYC Power Networking Day event. This event offers attendees the opportunity to build relationships with motivated professionals sharing similar interests. Experts will facilitate free-flowing networking discussions on the following subjects:

• Local Search Trends—Is it Time to Invest?
• How to Get the Most Out of Affiliate Marketing
• Online Advertising Trends
• Legal Q&A

To view agenda, sponsorship and registration details for DOMAINfest NYC, visit http://www.domainfest.com. The registration fee is $175 and includes all sessions, lunch, the auction, and dinner cocktail party.

363.com Leading .com Sales at Sedo – 41,000 USD

Slow week due to the july 4th holiday here in the US. For some reason, safetysupplies.com @ 29000 USD and serialkiller.com@ 7000USD seems interesting.

Highlights include 363.com leading .com sales at 41,000 USD, docs.com.cn leading ccTLDs at 31,000 USD and boxing.net leading the “other” TLDs at 15,000 USD.

Domain name Price Currency

.COMs .COMs
363.com 41000 USD
safetysupplies.com 29000 USD
rnr.com 24712 USD
blogmoney.com 16000 USD
stackit.com 15000 USD
ecsi.com 13000 USD
winportal.com 13000 EUR
trouvaycauvin.com 10500 USD
liked.com 10000 USD
dietetique.com 7500 EUR
hardwaretools.com 7100 USD
r10.com 7000 EUR
serialkiller.com 7000 USD
thinkeco.com 7000 USD
topart.com 6750 USD
firstaidsupplies.com 6500 USD
eheaven.com 6200 USD
settlementservices.com 5900 USD
artrite.com 5800 USD
dotalert.com 5650 USD
dasbesteodernichts.com 5625 USD
remortgagedeals.com 5500 GBP
stickerbooks.com 5400 USD
lovebaby.com 5000 USD
verito.com 5000 USD
ìcon.com 4950 EUR
globalstandard.com 4500 USD
autoaccidentattorneys.com 4400 USD
nipponpaper.com 4300 EUR
satay.com 4300 USD
shorthop.com 4250 USD
noggle.com 4000 USD
svj.com 3900 USD
urgencyroom.com 3800 USD
bhwm.com 3750 USD
ceili.com 3600 USD
delusional.com 3500 USD
ecommercewebsite.com 3500 USD
2243.com 3000 USD
askadentist.com 3000 USD
digitaltoolbox.com 3000 USD
launchr.com 3000 EUR
nudecamsworld.com 3000 USD
tecca.com 3000 USD
tiendabebes.com 3000 EUR
beattheblues.com 2750 USD
lingerievideos.com 2750 USD
eghana.com 2500 USD
investcloud.com 2500 USD
voipwifi.com 2500 USD
webhostingawards.com 2500 USD
разум.com 2500 USD
peopledating.com 2200 USD
tuandroid.com 2200 USD
traderworld.com 2100 USD
bijouteria.com 2000 USD
medisapiens.com 2000 EUR
secretcinema.com 2000 EUR
ijss.com 1995 USD
expatcareers.com 1950 USD
host-server.com 1890 USD
listen2me.com 1890 EUR
crazyrewards.com 1850 USD
biorenewable.com 1845 USD
trennkost.com 1785 EUR
branchout.com 1700 USD
dnsbenchmark.com 1700 USD
ehealthexperts.com 1700 USD
ingallery.com 1700 USD
räder.com 1700 USD
paydro.com 1688 USD
gnomonworkshop.com 1677 USD
goldster.com 1650 USD
aussenleuchten.com 1600 EUR
gorillastyle.com 1550 USD
arblog.com 1500 USD
betnetpoker.com 1500 USD
dermavie.com 1500 USD
ecotweet.com 1500 USD
fueraborda.com 1500 EUR
killeenapartments.com 1500 USD
parisjewelry.com 1500 USD
sportifs.com 1500 EUR
goholistic.com 1493 USD
faucetshoppe.com 1475 USD
tasjeel.com 1409 USD
goodsmile.com 1400 USD
ladiesgolfsets.com 1400 USD
careerlift.com 1313 USD
cefi.com 1250 USD
prosperityplanner.com 1250 USD
telefonoscelulares.com 1250 USD
elevatorarchitect.com 1225 USD
avanticonsulting.com 1200 GBP
blogcopy.com 1200 USD
résilier.com 1200 EUR
dezon.com 1100 EUR
alig.com 1050 USD
solar-cell.com 1020 USD
debtportal.com 1000 USD
emergencyexitsign.com 1000 USD
escortmedia.com 1000 USD
jetgirls.com 1000 USD
keepio.com 1000 EUR
mountolivepickles.com 1000 USD
spacetrooper.com 1000 EUR
splitpay.com 1000 USD
velociraptor.com 1000 EUR
yellowboards.com 1000 USD
americanoutlet.com 999 USD
linkscribe.com 999 USD
fanpeople.com 995 EUR
freeselfstorage.com 995 EUR
onetimepassword.com 995 USD
ecigarettefaq.com 990 USD
quikapps.com 950 USD
shopsimple.com 950 USD
thestoryboard.com 950 USD
yacos.com 950 EUR
geneticadvisor.com 945 USD
cabingo.com 900 USD
multibooks.com 900 USD
onlyorganics.com 900 USD
pcwhiz.com 888 USD
appmeter.com 879 USD
cashforcellphones.com 877 USD
neutrade.com 810 USD
arizonadatarecovery.com 800 USD
fun2travel.com 800 USD
lasrecetas.com 800 EUR
time2give.com 800 USD
chiner.com 780 EUR
9194.com 750 USD
findingyourvoice.com 750 USD
ibuku.com 750 EUR
kabeltjes.com 750 EUR
kronology.com 750 USD
phattube.com 750 USD
scrumschool.com 750 USD
richtberg.com 730 USD
childrenwithanxiety.com 725 USD
galaxen.com 700 EUR
physicaltherapywebsites.com 700 USD
sendtube.com 700 USD

CC TLDs
docs.com.cn 31000 USD
budgetair.in 20000 USD
kopfhörer.de 6500 EUR
tou.ch 5500 EUR
tarta.se 5000 EUR
logodesign.ca 4500 USD
moebeltransporte.de 4400 EUR
3d-fernseher.de 3800 EUR
crazycasino.co.uk 3500 GBP
ebaby.se 3000 EUR
vk.cc 3000 USD
betting.org.uk 2500 GBP
rapidmail.fr 2500 EUR
rentenerhoehung.de 2200 EUR
geldanlage.eu 2150 EUR
mango.in 2150 USD
xx.tv 2150 USD
lik.es 2000 GBP
oled.eu 2000 EUR
rockwoodholdings.cn 2000 USD
nahtmaterial.de 1990 EUR
enterprisearchitects.co.uk 1799 GBP
investable.co.uk 1763 GBP
terme.eu 1750 EUR
welpenfutter.de 1641 EUR
10.cc 1600 USD
track.be 1500 EUR
nailart.co.uk 1495 GBP
barcodescanners.co.uk 1383 GBP
trex.co.uk 1350 GBP
elektronische-zigarette.ch 1300 EUR
chaussures-homme.fr 1200 EUR
m.ai 1200 USD
zoogle.de 1200 EUR
glamping.nl 1150 EUR
alpinepro.de 1125 EUR
eoy.se 1111 EUR
insurancequotes.in 1110 USD
aktienwelt.de 1100 EUR
babyforum.at 1100 EUR
indiantakeaway.co.uk 1100 GBP
candida.asia 1089 USD
weddings.tv 1050 USD
androidhandys.de 1000 EUR
credit.co.in 1000 USD
estro.eu 1000 EUR
fxpro.hu 1000 USD
grossküchen.de 1000 EUR
mic-klinik.de 1000 EUR
pennsylvania.tv 1000 USD
promoto.eu 1000 EUR
salvia.de 1000 EUR
stool.co.uk 1000 GBP
acx.de 999 EUR
chinesetakeaway.co.uk 999 GBP
flyingflowers.de 999 EUR
vandal.jp 940 EUR
craps.de 929 EUR
freetrials.co.uk 900 GBP
lexware.asia 893 EUR
micronet.fr 805 EUR
sagex.de 800 EUR
tsv-taennesberg.de 800 EUR
telecare.eu 760 EUR
akt.eu 750 EUR
enveloppen.eu 750 EUR
indianer.ch 750 EUR
monprogramme.tv 750 EUR
online-offertes.nl 750 EUR
schiedsrichterbedarf.de 750 EUR
sportkleidung.de 750 EUR
cse.in 700 USD
freshcode.de 700 EUR
rusmedia.eu 700 EUR
schiedsrichtertrikot.de 700 EUR

OTHER TLDs
boxing.net 15000 USD
exe.org 8500 USD
landlordinsurance.net 7000 USD
dishtv.org 5000 USD
drogist.net 5000 EUR
hostingreviews.net 4000 USD
kayak.org 3600 USD
preguntas.net 3388 USD
iclinic.net 3250 USD
axigroup.net 3000 USD
cutepuppies.net 3000 USD
competitions.info 2999 USD
africa.biz 2695 EUR
dogforum.net 2500 USD
guenstigekredite.org 1800 EUR
atomium.net 1600 GBP
boatsales.net 1500 USD
healthcareplans.org 1500 USD
memory-lane.net 1500 USD
protec.net 1500 USD
cool.info 1450 USD
madgames.net 1300 USD
vergelijken.net 1300 USD
wbvz.info 1299 EUR
metaconsulting.net 1250 USD
knigi.net 1200 USD
domanda.net 1188 USD
maidservice.org 1188 USD
dpg.info 1100 GBP
1122.net 1060 USD
portugal.biz 1050 USD
skyb.net 1050 USD
250.org 1000 USD
businessbroadband.net 1000 EUR
clavier.net 1000 USD
pressemitteilung.net 1000 EUR
rentafence.net 1000 USD
social-work.org 1000 USD
vermarkter.org 1000 EUR
greatstuff.org 995 USD
onlineproperty.net 995 USD
cartransportation.net 949 USD
skulpturen.org 900 EUR
vehicleshipping.org 849 USD
augenblicke.net 800 USD
vehicletransport.org 799 USD
i-labs.org 790 USD
617.net 789 USD
badcreditpaydayloan.net 750 USD
bestpaydayloans.org 750 USD
cofinoga.info 750 USD
aidslink.org 700 USD
apothekennotdienst.org 700 EUR

Domain Value To BE Discussed On CNBC at 2:40 EST Today

“The Call” which is a popular CNBC show will have Jeff Kupietzky on today speaking about domain values. A must watch if you can.

Here’s the email I’d like to pass on to you:

Greetings,

Jeff Kupietzky, CEO of Oversee.net, will be interviewed on the CNBC show, “The Call,” which features a segment, entitled, “Anything but Stock.” Jeff will be talking about the value of domain names. The segment is part of The Call and Jeff’s segment should air live around 2:40 Eastern/11:40 Pacific.

“The Call” is a full hour of analysis, discussion and debate now that the Opening Bell frenzy has died down. It is hosted by Trish Regan, Larry Kudlow, and Melissa Francis, who take a closer look at all the information floating around the market — economic, corporate and political — and decide how to play the rest of the day.

Be sure to tune in!

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

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

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

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.”