The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA),the company behind .CA domain, is warning its customers of a new online scam.CIRA reports that RenewDomain.ca is sending out fake renewal notices to Canadian domain name owners .

CIRA  announced that RenewDomain.ca is not a CIRA Certified Registrar.Therefore,RenewDomain.ca is only trying to obtain payment from the registrants.

You can read CIRA’s announcement after the jump :

“The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has received reports of an online scam, wherein “renewdomain.ca” is sending out fake email renewal notices to .CA Registrants. “Renewdomain.ca” is not a CIRA Certified Registrar and is fraudulently posing as the Registrant’s Registrar in an attempt to obtain payment from the Registrant. The email identifies the recipient’s domain name and that it is about to expire. The recipient is then directed to renew the domain by clicking on a link that leads to a “renewdomain.ca” PayPal payment page.

CIRA has worked with the offending website’s hosting company, who took the site down. Anyone believing they have been a victim of this scam is encouraged to contact Paypal directly to dispute the transaction as quickly as possible.

All .CA Registrants should ignore these emails and not provide payment. If you have concerns about your domain name expiry date, contact your CIRA Certified Registrar directly.”

An arbitrator with the National Arbitration Forum has awarded the domain name FacebookConnect.com to Facebook.Facebook submitted a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum,on June 25,2012,asserting legal rights over the disputed domain name .

Facebook owns many trademark registrations for the “Facebook” mark.Therefore,it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.Moreover,the company contended in the complaint and managed to demonstrate that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the “FacebookConnect.com” domain name.

The third element that Facebook managed to demonstrate was that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith:

“Complainant’s trademark registration(s) for FACEBOOK existed well before Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name. Given the fame of Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s use of the suggestive term “connect” along with the mark to form the at‑issue domain name, it is apparent that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark, at the time it registered . “

Having established all three elements,the Panel ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.

You can read the decision here .