Friday, February 26, 2010

Judge Allows Ozzy Osbourne to Continue Lawsuit Over BLACK SABBATH

Back in June 2009, I wrote (link here) about the lawsuit filed by Ozzy Osborne against Tony Iommi over the rights to the BLACK SABBATH name. Ozzy’s lawsuit sought a declaration that he is at least a joint owner of the BLACK SABBATH mark (after rejoining the band in 1997 and revitalizing the brand) and that Iommi is not the sole owner of the mark as well as a cancellation of the BLACK SABBATH federal registration that Iommi currently owns on the basis that Iommi, when he filed the application in March 1999, made a knowingly false statement to the PTO when he declared that no other person had any right to use the BLACK SABBATH mark in commerce.

Today, the New York Post reported that District Court Judge John Koeltl ruled in favor of allowing Ozzy to move forward with his suit – while at the same time urging the parties to resume mediation in order to resolve the case instead of proceeding to trial. No other details have been reported. Other coverage by Blabbermouth.net.

So it looks like the Iron Man will Rock On.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Google – the real profiteer of “typosquatting”

An article in NewScientist.com highlights a report done by two Harvard University Professors entitled “Measuring the Perpetrators and Funders of Typosquatting” which analyzes the profitability of “typosquatting.”

Of course, the not-so-surprising finding from the study is that Google may be earning almost $500 million per year from domain name registrants who engage in so-called “typosquatting” who then post pay-per-click (“PPC”) ads generated by Google.

The report found that nearly 80% of the typosquatting domains showed pay-per-click advertisements that came from ad platforms operated by Google and Yahoo, which leads the authors to make the following suggestion to help with “typosquatting”:

Because ad platforms are the primary or sole source of revenue for these typo domains, we believe ad platforms are well-positioned to substantially reduce typosquatting. Among other responses, ad platforms could select partners more carefully, select only partners with a demonstrated record of avoiding typosquatting, and/or sever ties to partners who are found to engage in typosquatting. Furthermore, ad platforms could require that new partners showing ads on many domains post a bond that is forfeited upon typosquatting, or deduct penalties from payments to any partners found to engage in typosquatting. To the best of our knowledge, ad platforms have taken none of these steps.

The report did disclose that one of the authors of the study is also co-counsel in the pending lawsuit that Vulcan Golf filed against Google back in 2007 arising from Google earning money from typosquatting domains. (A similar report by was highlighed in a October 2008 article on wired.com discussing the pending lawsuit against Google).

And while the report notes Google’s disavowance of any involvement or responsibility over the registration and use of typosquatting domains, the report states the following regarding why search engines such as Google should (and indeed can) take on more responsibility to help alleviate the problem at their end – rather than forcing trademark owners to go after individual domain name registrants of typosquatting domains:

Despite the simplication resulting from ad platforms' preferred approach, we see multiple problems with ad platforms disclaiming all responsibility for the typosquatting they fund. For one, our analysis confirms that payments from ad platforms are the sole force behind most typosquatting registrations. Further- more, ad platforms are least-cost avoiders -- able to prevent typosquatting with less effort than any other party. In particular, thanks to the semantic analysis capabilities and spelling correction skills search engines gained through their principal businesses, ad platforms are well equipped to identify typosquatting registrations. (Consider Google's well-known and strikingly accurate “Did you mean?" function.) Indeed, search engines already receive information about the domains users visit (necessary to target ads accordingly). It would be straightforward to compare these requests to a list of top trademarks, and disallow parking ads from appearing on domains that are misspellings of popular sites.

But what I would really like someone to study is who are the internet browsers who travel to these typosquatting domains filled with PPC advertising after typing in the wrong domain name (and who were purportedly looking for a particular site – after all, how would there be a typo to squat upon) and who click on these PPC links instead of just bringing up one of the major search engines to find the site for which you were looking? The report explains how these sites make money (and Google’s important contribution to the business model) – but what I want to know is in the age of more enlightened understanding regarding navigating cyberspace, why do these sites make money?

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Battle Lines Drawn Between City of Las Vegas and Clark County over rights to .VEGAS top-level domain

I previously blogged (link here) about the efforts by the City of Las Vegas to partner with local company, Dot Vegas Inc. (“Dot Vegas”), over the creation of a new top-level-domain (“TLD”) — .VEGAS (a new domain name address suffix that could be used instead of the more common TLDs of .COM, .ORG, or .NET). The City of Las Vegas chose Dot Vegas over The Greenspun Corporation, owner of VEGAS.COM, which had also expressed interest in being the provider of the .VEGAS TLD. The same post also highlighted the potential conflict looming between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County over who should be the only “governmental municipality” in “Vegas” benefiting from registrations of .VEGAS domain names. After all, most of the hotel and casinos that outsiders with “Vegas” (including “The Strip”) is technically in the unincorporated area of Clark County and not within the City of Las Vegas.

I guess “Welcome to Fabulous Clark County, Nevada” doesn't have the same ring to it.

As reported today by The Las Vegas Review Journal (updated article here), Clark County commissioners voted today to endorse Vegas.com’s bid to be the provider of the .VEGAS TLD, thus setting up the battle between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County over who has the superior rights to the term VEGAS. Vegas.com has offered to pay the County $1.50 for every address registered under .VEGAS or 10 percent of the gross revenue, whichever is greater (in contrast, Dot Vegas’ deal with the City of Las Vegas was for 75 cents per registration or 10 percent of the gross revenues from future registrations).

Once final rules are established by ICANN over these new custom TLDs (information and announcements on ICANN’s gTLD program can be found here) and assuming both companies move forward with their plans, the battle will move on to ICANN which will have to determine which “governmental municipality” has the superior rights to “Vegas.”

[02/17/10 Update: The Las Vegas Sun also published an article on the controversy].

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Article spotlights partnership and conflict over .VEGAS top-level-domain

The Las Vegas Sun ran a story yesterday (link here) regarding the efforts of the City of Las Vegas to enter into a partnership with a local company, Dot Vegas Inc. (“Dot Vegas”), over the creation of a new top-level-domain (“TLD”) — .VEGAS (a new domain name address suffix that could be used instead of the more common TLDs of .COM, .ORG, or .NET). Dot Vegas is proposing that the City of Las Vegas get 75 cents per registration or 10 percent of the gross revenues from future registrations.


But another player in the picture is The Greenspun Corporation which owns VEGAS.COM (along with numerous Section 2(f)-based trademark registrations for the domain name as mark) and which has also been evaluating the business prospects behind a .VEGAS TLD ever since ICAAN announced in 2008 that it would allow the creation of custom TLDs. The CEO of Vegas.com reportedly was prepared to enter into a partnership for $1 per registration.



“The Strip” . . . in Fabulous Clark County, Nevada

Further complicating the matter is the “Vegas” governmental municipality with the authority to be involved in (and receive the benefits of) the .VEGAS TLD. After all, while most local Las Vegas residents recognize and understand the distinction between the incorporated City of Las Vegas and the unincorporated area of Clark County, Nevada, most outsiders may not realize that most of what the public identifies as Las Vegas, including “The Strip” (the area most often associated by the public with “Las Vegas”) is technically in the unincorporated area of Clark County and not within the City of Las Vegas. This has certain Clark County officials raising questions about whether the City of Las Vegas should be the only “governmental municipality” in “Vegas” benefiting from registrations of .VEGAS domain names.

For now, while the possible partnerships and conflicts over the creation of a .VEGAS TLD make for interesting news articles (and blog posts), such talk is somewhat premature (to paraphrase the MarkMonitor.com representative quoted in the Sun article) given that ICANN has yet to issue final rules regarding applications for such customized top-level domain names. Information and announcements on ICANN’s gTLD program can be found here.

[Update 2/4/10: Both the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review Journal ran articles today reporting on the Las Vegas City Council's vote to endorse Dot Vegas' plans for a .VEGAS TLD.]