[NA-Discuss] Another Cybersquatting Registrar

[Danny Younger]

Hi Joly,

The "big question" was asked by the folks over at Domain Name Wire: 
"I assume the $33 million judgment, if ever collected, would doom OnlineNic. But what role and under what timeline should ICANN step in to protect customers of OnlineNic?"

Let's see what ICANN chooses to do given the circumstances.  At the very least, you would think that some type of announcement or advisory would be in order.



--- On Fri, 12/26/08, WWWhatsup <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> From: WWWhatsup <joly at punkcast.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Another Cybersquatting Registrar
> To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Friday, December 26, 2008, 7:11 PM
> >
> 
> 
> The OnlineNIC story was also in yesterday's NY Times.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/technology/companies/25verizon.html
> 
> from the article:
> 
>         OnlineNic registered more than 900,000 domain names
>         similar to some of the world’s biggest companies,
>         including Google, Adidas, the News Corporation’s
> MySpace,
>         Wal-Mart Stores and Yahoo, Verizon said in court
> papers.
>         Verizon accused OnlineNic of using an automated
> process to
>         register the addresses and employing “numerous
> means to
>         conceal its true identity.”
> 
>         OnlineNic’s Web site says the company has been an
>         accredited registrar since 1996 for the Internet
>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
> Icann, the
>         organization that oversees the functioning of the
>         Internet.
> 
>         OnlineNic did not immediately respond to e-mail
> messages
>         seeking comment. Directory assistance could not
> provide a
>         number for the company. No lawyers for the company
> were
>         listed on the court docket.
> 
> 
> 
> j
> 
> 
> At 03:40 PM 12/25/2008, Danny wrote:
> ICANN accredited registrar OnlineNIC "unlawfully
> registered at least 663 domain names that were either
> identical to or confusingly similar to Verizon
> trademarks".  A federal court in the Northern District
> of California calculated an award based on $50,000 per
> domain name and awarded Verizon $33.15 million. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joly MacFie 
> 212 608 1334
> http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://punkcast.com  
> http://pinstand.com 
> 
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------