Take-Two Interactive Software Loses UDRP on GTA.TV Domain Name

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc, the video game publisher behind the “Grand Theft Auto” games, has just lost a UDRP on the domain name GTA.TV.

According to whois records,the domain name was registered on March 19,2010 and the current registrant is iCity Corp.The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on August 14,2013.

If up until now Take-Two has had a lot of success using UDRP to get domains that include the “GTA” term,in this case Take-Two Interactive Software lost the case.That’s because in previous cases there were other words in the domain that made it clear the Grand Theft Auto game was being targeted.

Take-Two Interactive argued the following:

“That, since 1998, the Complainant has been using the trademarks GRAND THEFT AUTO and GTA extensively around the world on television, Internet, magazines and various media.

That to date, over 125 million units of the games released in the GTA series have been sold and therefore the trademarks GRAND THEFT AUTO and GTA are strong trademarks worthy of the broadest scope of protection

That the referred trademarks are widely recognized throughout the US and the world, by millions of fans and consumers alike as being associated with the Complainant.

That the Complainant’s trademarks have been featured in media coverage relating to its video games for over a decade.

That the Complainant has filed intent to use applications with the USPTO for the trademark GTA TV.

That the Respondent is a domain name speculator, because in addition to owning the disputed domain name, the Respondent has registered other domains that likely infringe the rights of third parties, such as <facialbook.com>, <citilinktravels.com>, <canadaairtravel.ca> and <saveon.org>.”

That the Respondent has acted in bad faith because it has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent´s website.
That the Respondent is clearly attempting to confuse Internet users for its own commercial gain.

That the Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by its attempts to foreclose the Complainant from promoting its products on the Internet.
That the Respondent is curtailing the Complainant’s right to exploit the value of its trademark on the Internet and is blocking Complainant’s efforts to capitalize on its exclusive rights to actively promote its products under the GTA name.

That the Respondent appears to be a domain name speculator that has engaged in a pattern of registration of infringing domain names such as <facialbook.com>, <citilinktravels.com> and <saveon.org>, which consist on prima facie evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration.

The Respondent argues the following:

That the Respondent’s business is in the field of website development and design, and that it develops websites associated with its own domain names.

That GTA refers to the term “Greater Toronto Area”, which is a generic name.

That the Respondent has developed many websites containing generic names.

That the Respondent’s legitimate interest derives from its intention to develop a non-infringing website related to the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA.

That Mississauga Ontario, which is the place where the Respondent is located, is a part of the Greater Toronto Area.

That the Respondent’s intention is to develop a website associated with the disputed domain name <gta.tv> such as television and video pertaining to the Greater Toronto Area.

That registrants of domain names may have a legitimate interest in generic words or geographical indicators, provided that they are not used to trade on trademark owner’s goodwill.

That short two or three letter acronyms have been held to ground a legitimate interest provided they are not used to trade on trademark owner’s goodwill.

That the Complainant has failed to provide a reasonable basis to undermine the Respondent’s legitimate interest in the disputed domain name <gta.tv>.

That the Complainant did not present a single UDRP precedent where a domain name that corresponds to a descriptive term or dictionary word, and registered because of that, was ordered to be transferred.”

The Panel found that the complainant has failed to prove the three elements required.

Want To Know When New gTLDs Are Launching? European Domain Centre Shows When

The launch dates of some of the first new gTLDs have been announced, but as 2014 rolls along dozens will often be launching in a month, maybe even in some weeks.

To keep tabs on the 617 new gTLDs that will be available for public registration as they launch, Christopher Hofman of the European Domain Centre has developed an extremely helpful infographic with all the information and outlining Sunrise and Landrush phases.

Just be warned, to check out when new gTLDs are launched, and often this is a prediction, hold your cursor over the month in question on the calendar wheel and the gTLDs launching in that month will appear on either side of the calendar wheel.

So check out blog.europeandomaincentre.com/infographics-launch-dates-for-the-617-new-gtlds.

88888.com Wins Weekly Sales List at $245,000

88888.com,sold for $245,000,topped Domain Name Journal sales list of reported domain names for the last week,ending November 24,2013.

There was only one six figure domain name sale this week : 88888.com, sold for $245,000 through DomainNameSales.

DomainNameSales had a great week in the sales chart,taking 12 of the top 20 positions .Correspondingly,Sedo took 6 of the top 20 positions .

.COM dominated once again the list,with 17 of the top 20 positions.

Here are the top 20 positions for the two weeks ending November 24,2013 :

1.88888.com$245,000

2.3DPrinter.net$60,000

3.Routes.com$50,000

4.Novio.com$45,000

5.Preggers.com$40,000

6.TheResource.com$35,000

7.Blabbermouth.com$34,000

8.WonderfulWorld.com$32,500

9.tieFinanced.com$25,000

9.tieHeritageHome.com$25,000

11.BIX.net$23,850

12.SouthHill.com$23,000

13.CambridgeHomes.com$22,000

14.Mozart.co$21,000

15.tieBener.com$20,000

15.tieMiWifi.com$20,000

17.LoveToDream.com$18,888

18.tieBKON.com$17,000

18.tieRealEstateSecrets.com$17,000

20.IRATransfer.com$16,000

See here the Domain Name Journal list of top reported sales .

Redemption Grace Period for .DE Name Space Kicks Off in Early December

DENIC, the company behind .DE domain, announced that it will launch a dedicated cooling off service, also called Redemption Grace Period-rgp,which shall apply for all second-level domains in the .DE name space.

You can read the press release after the jump:

“Effective 3 December 2013, the managing organization and central registry operator of the .DE top level domain, DENIC, will launch a dedicated cooling-off service (called Redemption Grace Period – RGP) which shall apply for all second-level domain names in the .DE name space. This procedure shall protect registrants against an unintentional loss of their domain(s), as a result of accidental deletion.

Under the RGP scheme, .DE domain names shall no longer be irretrievably lost, following deletion, but instead initially enter a subsequent 30-day cooling-off phase, during which they may solely be re-registered on behalf of their former registrant(s).

RGP cooling-off provisions shall allow former registrants to redeem registration of the subject domain names, by having recourse to the related Restore service, through a registrar. Only if no redemption is requested, during the 30-day RGP phase, the relevant domain names shall become available for registration by any interested party again. At the time being, similar regulations are applied by other top level domain registries already.

Registrars redeeming a deleted .DE domain name for the original registrant will have to pay a Restore fee and may pass on the related costings.

Deleted .DE domain names placed in cooling off, from RGP implementation, will be earmarked by a redemption period status in the DENIC lookup services (whois) accessible at www.denic.de.

As a consequence of the above measures, the current DENIC .DE domain guidelines shall be superseded by new, amended ones from the date of RGP launch, i.e. 3 December 2013, which shall then be permanently published at www.denic.de/en/domains/general-information/domain-guidelines.html.

ICANN: Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration

Purpose (Brief): To obtain community input on the recommendations recently adopted by the GNSO Council concerning the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process prior to their consideration by the ICANN Board of Directors.

Current Status: The IGO-INGO PDP Working Group delivered its Final Report [PDF, 645 KB] to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. The WG ‘s consensus recommendations as contained in the report were adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 20 November. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policies under consideration as well as an opportunity to comment on their adoption, prior to their consideration by the ICANN Board.

Next Steps: ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the Board in conjunction with those IGO-INGO Identifier Protection recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council.

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The Generic Names Supporting Organization ( GNSO ) unanimously approved at its meeting on 20 November 2013 the consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which are now pending Board action. The GNSO Council recommends that a series of identifier protections at the top and second level be granted to International Governmental Organizations ( IGO ), the Red Cross Red Crescent movement (RCRC), the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and other International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO). The detailed recommendations can be found in the Final Report [PDF, 645 KB], with a summary provided within the GNSO Council motion. In short, the recommendations cover the following dimensions:

Application to existing gTLDs, the current round of new gTLDs, and future rounds of new gTLDs
The full name and acronym of the organizations seeking protection, specified in a limited list of identifiers
Translation of protected identifiers in a certain specified number of languages other than English
Top level reservation of full names denoted as “strings ineligible for delegation” with an exception procedure to be devised
Second level reservation of full names within Registry Agreements with an exception procedure to be devised
No reservations either at the top or second level for acronyms
Access to the Trademark Clearinghouse ( TMCH ) for those full names and acronyms not reserved, for a 90-days claims notification process
IGO and INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure to be examined through an Issue Report preceding a possible PDP
The formation of an Implementation Review Team to assist with implementation should the Board adopt the GNSO recommendations

Section II: Background:

For a detailed background and history of the issue on whether to protect certain IGO and INGO identifiers (including the RCRC and IOC) prior to the initiation of this PDP , please see the Final GNSO Issue Report [PDF, 675 KB] on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs. The Issue Report was initiated as a result of a recommendation by the GNSO Drafting Team that was formed in October 2011 to provide recommendations to the GNSO Council in response to ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee ( GAC ) requests concerning protection of IOC and RCRC names in new gTLDs. After community review, the scope of the Final GNSO Issue Report included a recommendation that the GNSO evaluate whether the names of IGOs and INGOs at both the top level and second levels should be protected in all gTLDs.

At its meeting in October 2012, the GNSO Council considered the Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs, and approved a motion to initiate a Policy Development Process ( PDP ) for the protection of certain international organization names and acronyms in all gTLDs. The Working Group ( WG ) was formed on 31 October 2012 and the WG Charter approved by the GNSO Council on 15 November 2012. The GNSO Council also decided to subsume the issue regarding protection for RCRC and IOC identifiers into the new PDP WG discussions.

As part of its deliberations, the PDP WG was required under the WG Charter to consider the following questions:

Whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for the names and acronyms of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) protected by international law and multiple domestic statutes, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC), and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In deliberating this issue, the WG should consider the following elements:
- Quantifying the Entities to be Considered for Special Protection
- Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/National Laws for IGO , RCRC and IOC Names
- Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of International Organization Names
- Distinguishing Any Substantive Differences Between the RCRC and IOC From Other International Organizations
If there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to develop policy recommendations for such protections. Specifically, the PDP WG should:
- Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, develop specific recommendations for the appropriate special protections for these names.
- Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for the names and acronyms of all other qualifying international organizations.

On 14 June 2013 the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group published its Initial Report [PDF, 609 KB] for public comment. On 20 September 2013 the Working Group published its draft Final Report [PDF, 676 KB] for public comment, incorporating feedback received in response to its Initial Report. On 10 November 2013 the Working Group published its Final Report [PDF, 644 KB] and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report. The Working Group’s Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various Working Group members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: