
Il.de hit 5,200 EUR and has four days left until the auction closes,while nx.de hit 4,000 EUR .
Here is the entire inventory :
XM.de
98.de
85.de
93.de
92.de
jd.de
hz.de
jx.de
hx.de
qn.de
hy.de
mq.de
vg.de
16.de
jf.de
py.de
ji.de
jn.de
Il.de hit 5,200 EUR and has four days left until the auction closes,while nx.de hit 4,000 EUR .
Here is the entire inventory :
XM.de
98.de
85.de
93.de
92.de
jd.de
hz.de
jx.de
hx.de
qn.de
hy.de
mq.de
vg.de
16.de
jf.de
py.de
ji.de
jn.de
“DNSChanger was a piece of malware that altered the Domain Name System (DNS) settings of computers so that all web page requests coming from those computers would be redirected to nameservers operated by criminals. The illicit DNS nameservers redirected some of their traffic to domains that would generate click-based payments to the perpetrators. DNSChanger is said to have infected about 4 million computers worldwide, and to have generated $14 million in illicit revenues. The Estonia-based group running the scam provoked a complex international, multi-agency investigation, dubbed Operation Ghostclick. The operation culminated in their arrest by Estonian police in early November.”
To read the rest of the article by Milton Mueller, Michael van Eeten and Brendon Kuerbis, see:
blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/11/23/4944811.html
The 13 domain names are : androidgoggle.com, androidintel.com, flyingandroid.com, googlebug.com, googlecitysearch.com, g00gler.com, googlesandroid.com, googlesthinkquarterly.com, lifegoogle.com, opensourceandroid.com, phandroid.net, sellyourandroid.com, and technoandroid.com .
Google owns many trademark registrations for the “Android” and “Google” marks.Therefore,it is more than obvious that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks.Moreover,the company contended that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith :
“According to Complainant’s screen shots, Respondent’s , , , , , and domain names resolve to websites hosting competing and unrelated hyperlinks.”
“Complainant’s screen shots show that the , , , , , , and domain names resolve to websites only hosting unrelated hyperlinks.”
The Panel ordered the disputed domain names be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
You can read the decision here .