In assessing bad faith “the complainant must prove that the respondent has ‘targeted’ the complainant or its mark in some way, or at the very least that the respondent had the complainant or its trademark in mind when it selected the disputed domain name,” Foodcube Technologies Inc. v. Registrant [1349920]: Domain Administrator, Foodcube Takeaways, D2009-0945 (WIPO September 4, 2009). The “usual telltale signs of cybersquatting” are the actions described in the four examples of bad faith. It must be evident that in some way the respondent anticipates a benefit by holding or is currently benefitting from actual use of the domain name.

The facts in Foodcube are unusual in that <foodcube.com> was registered prior to the Complainant’s trademark coming into existence but transferred several times while remaining in possession of the original registrant. The argument that rearranging ownership of a domain name within the family should be “effectively ignored” has been rejected. Certipost NV v. Virtual Point Inc, D2008-1183 (WIPO September 25, 2008). Each transfer constitutes a new registration, HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager, D2007-0062 (WIPO June 4, 2007) (“[T]he transfer of a domain name to a third party amounts to a new registration, requiring the issue of bad faith registration to be determined at the time the current registrant took possession of the domain name.”).

However, a complainant of a later acquired trademark right must still prove bad faith. A new registration is measured by the same standards as the original registration. It was evident from the record that there could have been no bad faith registration by the original registrant. In Foodcube, there was a new registration of the domain name and “the issue is whether the Complainant has proved that the Respondent acted in bad faith in effecting that registration.” There was no evidence of bad faith use by any of the prior registrants. Acquiring a domain name and continuing bad faith use is one of the telltale signs of bad faith registration. Except for asserting that the business advertised on the website was a sham, there was no evidence that the Respondent or its predecessors had the Complainant in mind at any time.

The Respondent’s explanations in Foodcube for the various transfers were not implausible as a response to statements made by the Complainant’s representative in cease and desist letters and correspondence with the Respondent. One of the notices stated that “WIPO decisions uniformly reject this view [that you, the Respondent have a superior claim because you registered the domain name earlier than the existence of the trademark right], and find that the date of registration does not confer a superior claim against a trademark holder when the domain name holder is not using the domain for any legitimate, bona fide purpose.” The Panel properly found (indeed, was generous in its language) that the statement was “potentially misleading.” In fact, the statement misstates the law and may very well have excited the Respondent into protecting his position by making “internal rearrangements.” “The Complainant’s real difficulty stems from the fact that this Domain Name was registered before the Complainant even came into existence and, unlike the position in Certipost, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith intent targeting the Complainant, in the ‘internal rearrangements’ made with the Domain Name” in the relevant periods (emphasis in the original).

Two recent decisions have highlighted Respondents’ legitimate interests in domain names that incorporate a holder’s trademark, by happenstance the same Complainant, SAP AG v. SAP User List, D2009-1285 (WIPO November 8, 2009) (November 17, 2009, LegitimateUse) and SAP AG v. UniSAP, Inc., D2009-0297 (WIPO April 28, 2009) (May 29, 2009, Incorporating). That there are limits is discussed in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation), Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V. v. MCS Bulgaria 2003, D2009-1294 November 17, 2009) (<sony-bg.com> and <sonybg.com>).

The Respondent in Sony “acknowledges the similarity between the Complainants’ trade mark SONY and the Domain Names,” but argued that it was “not unlawful in Bulgaria to offer for sale the Complainants products by reference to the Complainants’ trade marks, and the Respondent therefore needs no authorization from it to do so.” The question is not the selling of Sony products and there is nothing unlawful in Respondent’s conduct. However, “the proposition that, because such conduct is not per se unlawful, the Respondent therefore necessarily has a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names, in the sense meant by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, is not correct.”

The proper question, rather, is whether in conducting this lawful business the Respondent is adhering to the guidelines that permit the use of a Complainant’s trademark, as was the result in the SAP decisions. A legitimate interest is earned by meeting the four part criteria, articulated in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO November 6, 2001). In Sony, the facts did not support this finding. It would be unobjectionable “[i]f the websites merely included links to other, clearly separate, websites offering other goods, in addition to a certification as a Toshiba dealer (which could serve as nothing more than an assertion of genuineness of the Respondent’s business).” However,

in this case a consideration of the website under the Domain Name <sony-bg.com> today shows that the same website is clearly offering other goods, including those of the competing supplier Toshiba, or, more accurately, that pages from another website of the Respondent are being linked so that they appear on the website under <sony-bg.com>.

As a result, Respondent in Sony fails the second and third prongs of the Oki Data test, namely that (2) it does not use the site to sell only the trademarked goods and (3) the site does not accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner.

Gifts and Free Advice image

Whether you’re a web guru or not, it may be time to brand yourself online— and outside the realm of social media. Scooping up a domain name and creating a portfolio website is highly encouraged for students like ourselves, so what does it take to get started?

1. Brainstorm a website name, and keep it short, sweet and memorable. A good domain name will let people know what to expect from the site. More often than not, it’s best to use your own name or your brand name for a portfolio site. However, if you have a popular name or a really complicated name spelling, you might want to think twice about using it.
2. Don’t fear the “com”; in fact, you should befriend it. A .com website will be more successful because most people think in .com terms. A .net or .me domain can also be used, but avoid .org unless it’s actually an organizational site.
3. The more, the merrier. Take advantage of an opportunity to buy multiple domain names. This will help with traffic stealing if another person has a domain name similar to yours, and can account for misspellings on the user’s part.
4. Scope out what’s available. GoDaddy’s bulk upload feature allows you to see what domain names are up for grabs. It’s quick and easy. The nameboy search is also a good time saver.
5. Decide where you want to purchase your domain name. There are tons of registrars online, and prices vary.
6. Choose a host. The Site Wizard has a good list of what to look for while selecting one.

Purchasing a domain name doesn’t mean you have to launch a website overnight, but it lets you have some control over what comes up when you Google yourself. It’s a way of self-branding, displaying best works and putting your information out there for potential employers.

Have you purchased a domain name? Which registrar did you go through? Do you have an online portfolio?

Like any profitable businesses, the internet is an ever-changing environment that can leave you eating the dust from competitors if you fail to get adequate visibility.

Marketing and advertising is the name of the business. No matter how good your product or service is and the benefits consumers can reap from them, it can easily be overshadowed by competitors by simply having better domain names. So if you’re  in the process of coming up with all the business and domain names, one should be the one to beat them.

The online domain name generator at MakeWords.com allows you to gain an advantage in the name hunting and registration game. Stay a step ahead by keeping a close, real-time watch on relevant names that can help you become a stronger player with internet-based marketing and business.

You will find that many of the business names and even domain names you can look up from this website are short, catchy and with the most common extensions that most customers and clients can familiarize themselves with. You don’t have to figure this all out on your own. MakeWords is your one-stop shop that will make checking domain names availability steps a breeze for you.

Know, however, that the best domain names are most likely taken by another which may or may not be a direct competitor. But don’t feel let down because MakeWords will not give up on you. Experimenting with various domain creation tools or adding a few letters as affixes can make a difference different such as adding “my”, numbers or even special characters.

Processing domain registration online is simple as well. At MakeWords you get no less than the top 30 hosting companies including corresponding prices for the domain name, hosting, information on disk space, bandwidth and links. And mind you, the prices are competitive and you could find one registrant that would fit your budget.

Give your product or service the marketing push it needs to make it a successful venture and start your domain search at MakeWords.com – the free domain name generator and brainstorming tool. 

About the Author

Start your domain search at www.MakeWords.com – Internet’s most comprehensive Domain Name Generator, Check, Search and Lookup tool.

Paragraph 2 of the UDRP reads that by “applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that … (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party” (Emphasis added). The “knowledge” that the respondent must have is actual. The U.S. trademark doctrine of constructive notice is not recognized under the Policy. The “mere existence of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name does not … create any presumption of knowledge,” Salmi Oy v. PACWEBS, D2009-0040 (WIPO February 4, 2009). However, this simply means that the complainant must offer evidence from which the inference of knowledge can be drawn. The requirement is less than certitude but more than statutory constructive notice. A leaning toward knowledge, however, is more likely to be found when the trademark in issue is particularly strong, heavily advertised or promoted, where the parties are in the same territorial or niche market, have had prior business dealings or are in close geographic proximity. The test of knowledge is “awareness.”

In Ford’s Produce Co., Inc v. Eric Botner, FA0910001288827 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 20, 2009) the Respondent admitted that “it was aware of the Complainant’s website and its offering of products prior to registering the name” although sought to excuse itself on the theory that its CEO “saw no conflict.” Beholders’ eyes, however, see what they want. While having knowledge is not necessarily inconsistent with good faith, it is not the test for determining it. Even if the Respondent knew nothing of the Complainant’s trademark for EARTH FAMILY, it admitted knowing the Complainant’s domain name, <earthfamilyfood.com>. In order capture some of the Internet traffic otherwise going to <earthfamilyfood.com> it varied the domain name by adding an “s” to “food” – forming <earthfamilyfoods.com>. This may raise an interesting question as to whether a respondent’s knowledge based on a domain name rather than the complainant’s trademark satisfies the bad faith requirement under the Policy. But, it appears that knowledge of one presumes the other.

A complainant’s argument, however, cannot simply be based on the theory of constructive notice. ENX (European Network Exchange) Association v. Ahven Tolunay, D2009-1218 (WIPO October 28, 2009). “The Panel … does not accept the Complainant’s submission that a doctrine of constructive notice applies in circumstances where there is a United States trade mark registration so as to render the Respondent necessarily aware of the Complainant’s mark.” There has to be evidence of notice of the kind that denial of knowledge is implausible. Panels have emphasized from the earliest decisions that doctrines of national law are not to be imported into the UDRP. The conclusion drawn from the evidence in ENX is a model of deduction. The Panel leads up to his conclusion by noting that the Respondent could possibly have become “generally aware of the Complainant’s trade mark as a consequence of its general repute,” or its location relative to the Complainant. The Respondent also “appears to have a variety of domain name registrations … quite possibly for re-sale purposes,” but this too is “not prima facie indicative of bad faith.” These bits of evidence, however, add up:

The coincidence of factors including the proximity of the Respondent’s stated address to the Complainant’s offices, the apparent provision of false owner name information and false address information both for the Disputed Domain Name and it seems for other domain names owned by the Respondent, are all indicative that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Moreover, the “inference of the Respondent’s registration in bad faith is only reinforced by the lack of bona fides of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, the lack of evidence of any goods or services provided by the Respondent and the substantial likelihood that the content of this website was created by the original owner of the Disputed Domain Name and has simply been replicated by the Respondent.”

Once upon a time I had a webmaster who did everything for me. Then I had another webmaster. At first she did everything for me, but then she encouraged me to be my own webmaster…unless I needed help. Now, I have control over my own websites  as well as over my own blogs. (I have two websites and three blogs.)

Once upon a time I thought I was too stupid to do anything on the Internet. I was afraid to manage my own website or blog. I found doing anything on the Internet daunting. So, I let other people do my work for my online. Now I spend a good deal of every day promoting myself on the Internet via my blogs, websites, social networking, article marketing, etc. And, because I have been willing to take on the job of  ”Internet marketer and promoter,” even though I’d really like to just be writing my books, I’ve driven a tremendous amount of traffic to my websites and to my blogs. In fact, I’ve built a platform, and I might have more readers online than I could ever drum up for a book.

And, guess what? I kind of enjoy my time working online. I love blogging—and the fact that the more I blog the more readers I have. I enjoy social networking. I don’t mind writing articles and posting them to directories. I even kind of like working on my websites, which is easier than trying to explain to someone else what I want done.

To whom do I owe this knowledge, experience and revelation? To Linda Lee, my sometimes webmaster, always friend and an expert at helping writers develop a web presence and take control of their online life.  The founder and owner of AskMePc-WebDesign and SmartWomenStupidComputers, Linda Lee is a writer, speaker, educator, and website designer. Today, she offers a WNFiN post filled with great information to take the fear out of any writer who knows in their heart they must take the leap and create an online presence via a website or blog…no matter how much they don’t want to do so or fear doing so.

All nonfiction writers absolutely must have online presences today, and this presence becomes a necessity before their books hit the bookstore shelves not afterwards. So, read Linda’s advice and take action before November ends. If stating a blog or website ends up being the only WNFiN project you take on this month, so be it. Even if you don’t finish it by month’s end, you’ll at least have gotten started. (Just be sure you finish…)

Promoting Yourself Online for Writers:
How to Get Started Without Losing Your Mind
By Linda Lee

Writers often hate the promotion part of their job. Even non-writers can understand this emotion. Unless you have a “sales” personality, promoting yourself can be awkward and difficult.

Writers must face this fact that in today’s publishing world, no matter what kind of writing you do, you will need a website at some point to promote yourself on the Internet. This allows people to find you and your work.  Having a website also represents part of building your platform. Agents, publishers and your own readers expect to find you online. Gone are the days when you could say, “I don’t go online or use the Internet.” It is best to embrace this reality now, and get started as soon as possible.

Alleviate Your Fears of Working Online

Beginning your online promotion can be a creative and fun endeavor.  Even if you are a technophobe, you can do this. I have helped hundreds of people who had no computer skills or knowledge at all—and many writers as well—start a website or blog. They now enjoy the perks of having a web presence and are proud of themselves for pushing through their fear of getting started online.

Getting started consists of several components that ultimately create an online presence for you as a writer. Developing this is not as hard it may appear to you. People have lots of fear around working online. Almost daily I hear people say, “I am so stupid with computers,” “I don’t know anything,” and “I am a technophobe.”

You can alleviate these fears, however. When you work on the computer, no matter your current skills level, do the following:

1. Realize that you can do it. (Please, do not tell yourself you are stupid; you aren’t.)
2. Take it one task, one item, at a time.
3. Take a break when you feel frustrated.
4. Google for help. (I find answers to almost every question I encounter while working online simply by searching for it on Google.)
5. Stay focused on what you are trying to accomplish.
6. Do not compare yourself to others online. (You will reach their level of expertise.)

Stay Focused on What you Want to Accomplish Online

During the last 10 years of working online, the most important lesson I have learned is to stay focused on what you want to achieve. When you work online, literally millions of things clamor for your attention. Suddenly you begin to notice numerous internet marketing ideas, “get rich online” schemes and this tool and that tool. Then your friends start telling you about things you simply must do, like Twitter and  Facebook, and tons of things you may of never even have heard of! Everyone will tell you that they know best, and that you must try this or that. Before you know it, you will feel overwhelmed and frozen by your fear and confusion.

Right now, find an index card or a note card and write this down:

What am I trying to accomplish online?
Is what I am doing right now getting me closer to that goal?

When your head starts to spin with information overload, take out this car, close your eyes, take a deep cleansing breath, and read it. Then answer the questions honestly. This will help you stay focused and prevent you from getting distracted from your primary purpose.

I also suggest that you do not start buying internet marketing products until you have at least gotten a website or a blog up and have spent some time developing content.

No matter what your goals, focus always constitutes the first thing you have to learn. Staying focused on the basics allows you to get a little experience before you invest in Internet marketing products that have an entirely different learning curve and can be complex and a distraction from your purpose.

What You Need to Create a Website or Blog

As I said, to promote yourself as a writer, you need a website or a blog. Here are the basics you need to get started online:

1. You need a domain name.

You can buy a domain name from a variety of places.
The pricing varies from 6.95-14.95 a year.
Places that offer a very cheap price initially for a domain name will charge you full price upon annual renewal.

2. You need to select a hosting company.

This is where your website will live, or be “hosted.”
Be sure to look for a company with telephone support and a control panel, so you can login and work on your website yourself.

3. You need a website or a blog.

Once you have gotten your domain name, selected your hosting company and set it up, you are ready to create your website or blog. Both blogs and websites are websites. Blogging started out as more of a journaling tool, and the name blog comes from “web log.” An exciting medium has evolved out of this initial tool. WordPress, which has become the major blogging platform, now is more powerful then most websites in what it can do for you as a website.

WordPress functions as what is called a “content management system.” What this means is that you, as the user, have control over your website. You can login and add articles, or “posts” and “pages,” images, videos, and audio on your own without the need to pay a webmaster.

I encourage many of my clients to select what I call a “blog website” vs. the traditional straight website.

4. Get Started Right Now With a Free Blog

You can sign up for a free blog at WordPress.com or Blogger.com. I recommend WordPress.com, since they are the number one content management system out there. Plus, if you learn the system in their free version and later decide to host your own site, you will be able to transfer your work over to you own self-hosted blog and domain with ease.

Many of my clients ask me to explain the difference between WordPress.com and WordPress.org. WordPress.com hosts your blog, and they run the entire site, which is full of blogs. You are in control of the content, but your site “lives” with them. This is fine when starting out and if you want to get used to blogging for free. WordPress.com has its own communities you can join. They get great results in the search engines. If you are on a budget or want a great place to learn, I think this offers a perfect choice. You can’t beat the price!

WordPress.org is for people who are self hosting their own blogs. This is a support community with people who use self-hosted blogs helping each other.

5. Maintain a Traditional Website and Add a Blog

Many of my clients already have a website, and they want to add a blog. This allows you to maintain your website with your webmaster, and you can update pages on your blog yourself. Blogs get lots of “search engine love,” because they are fresher and updated more frequently. If you add a blog to an existing website, you will see your traffic increase almost immediately.

The Writers’ Advantage Online

Remember every journey begins with one step. Did I mention that working online can be a lot of fun too? As writers you already have a huge advantage over most people, since you already know how to write.

There is a saying online: “Content is King.” No matter what your site looks like, in the end it what you have written that brings in the readers. Just think of this as another opportunity to showcase your writing and attract new readership and attention,  and you will be building your platform online in the process.

About the Author

Linda Lee is the founder and owner of AskMePc-WebDesign and SmartWomenStupidComputers. She is a writer, speaker, educator, and website designer. She is currently working on her book Smart Women, Stupid Computers, A Savvy Guide to Getting Started Online. Available for consulting and coaching, she helps people launch blogs and websites and trains then in how to get traffic to their sites and to maximize their website presence with the use of blogging and search engine optimization of their websites. Linda is passionate about empowering people to take charge of their computer, showing clients with laughter and enthusiasm that they can make it work for them.

http://www.askmepc-webdesign.com
510-582-2837

Help writers find the wonderful information and resources at Write Nonfiction in November all year:
Vote  WNFIN One of Writer’s Digest’s Annual 101 Best Internet Sites for Writers

Please visit www.copywrightcommunications.com and sign up for the free newsletter to receive a gift at the end of the Write Nonfiction in November challenge!

Don’t forget to sign into the WNFiN social networking and chat room and tell us what you are writing about or start a discussion.
http://writenonfictioninnovember.ning.com/

This weekend I bought my own domain name and became the proud owner of LizzBryce.com. The practical use has yet to be determined, but for $5 I figured I couldn’t go wrong.

As it turns out, the simple act of purchasing a domain name is the Internet equivalent of spray painting my personal information on the side of the CN tower.

I’ve wanted to own my domain name for some time now. I’ve always been interested in web design and I thought that this would be an opportunity to practice with little consequence. What I hadn’t counted on was the amount of information I was about to reveal to the general public. Unbeknownst to me, every domain name owner on the Internet is listed in a database called “Whois.”

I was shocked when I discovered this. As a blogger, I had generally refrained from revealing too many personal details or pictures on my site. While I knew I would be giving up some of this anonymity by purchasing a domain with my full name, I comforted myself knowing that there is not much that can be done with a name – and besides, it already shows up on Facebook.

Even more surprising than the existence of this database was the fact that I wasn’t warned about it before I made my purchase. A full day after completing the transaction, I received an e-mail in my inbox sounding the alarms: “Your Personal Information is Not Protected!” read the subject line. My domain registrar was offering to mask my identity, at least on the public list. For only $11 a year I could avoid becoming one of 275,000 Americans who become “victims of Internet crime.”

I didn’t know what to do. The e-mail left me feeling vulnerable and confused. I had never heard of the database so I decided to do some investigating.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization formed to oversee Internet-related tasks that were once performed by the U.S. government, supervises the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. According to ICANN’s website, domain registrars are required to “collect and provide free public access to the . . . date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the administrative contact.” For celebrities like Britney Spears or Brad Pitt, the database lists the law firm that handles their website. For business websites the name and address of the business is listed. In my case, my name, home address, phone number, and e-mail were out there for the world to see.

Of course there are many websites that reveal personal information. Canada411 lists home phone numbers and addresses, and allows people to perform “reverse lookups” by searching by name, phone number or address. Google Street View shows my apartment building, the coffee shop I see from my window and the bookstore across the street – not to mention the cars that were driving by at the time the pictures were taken. And I use these technologies often – sometimes for serious reasons, and sometimes just for fun. But I can’t help but ask have we gone too far?

All of these technologies have legitimate uses, and I believe were conceived with good intentions. Whois is meant to prevent people from using the Internet as a shield when promoting hateful, dangerous or illegal content. But while the rules governing the database state that persons may not use it for unlawful purposes, I am pretty sure that anyone seeking out information for unlawful reasons doesn’t care.

So whether it was to protect myself from criminals, or because I plan to become a criminal myself, I paid that $11 and I will sleep easier tonight. Will you?

Registering 1,017 variants of the Complainant’s trademark FREECREDITREPORT.COM is eye-popping and in its way hugely comic. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Netcorp Netcorp c/o Netcorp, FA0909001283469 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 11, 2009). Here is a dozen sampling from the beginning of the alphabet: <arfreecreditreport.com>, <asfreecreditreport.com>, <bfreecreditreport.com>, <breecreditreport.com>, <cafreecreditreport.com>, <cfreecreditreport.com>, <cofreecreditreport.com>, <connecticutfreecreditreport.com>, <ctfreecreditreport.com>, <dcfreecreditreport.com>, <defreecreditreport.com>, <dfreecreditreport.com>.

How does a registrant explain these variations? Well, first of all when the trademark application was made for FREECREDITREPORT.COM the Examining Attorney rejected it “due to its descriptiveness.” Although the Complainant overcame the objections (according to the Respondent) it “had no rights in the mark at the time the domains were registered.” Timing in this case coupled with proof of a common law right is particularly important. The Complainant’s application was filed in February 2006 and the trademark issued in May 2008. However, the Complainant claimed a first use in commerce as January 1999. The evidence for a January 1999 first use was compelling. The Complainant asserted (without dispute from the Respondent) that

between 1999 and 2002 it spent more than $12 million per year promoting the services offered under the mark, and that advertising spending increased each year…. [In] September 2002 [the advertising] ran on 18 cable networks, generated 130,000 consumer responses, and resulted in 110,000 sales. In January 2003, another advertisement ran during the Super Bowl pregame telecast, exposing the mark to millions more consumers. Complainant contends that a survey in June 2005 indicated that 53% of consumers were at least somewhat familiar with the FREECREDITREPORT.COM mark.

The disputed domain names were registered during a period of intense nationwide exposure to the trademark. However, the question is whether the Respondent’s registrations were fortuitous in the sense of two people lighting on the same combination of common words, with the Respondent being the first to register? This was improbable because of the variations. If the Respondent had been the first to register in good faith there would have been no reason for variations. The Panel found 15 different kinds of variations, many being typographical, others changing the tense, still others “adding generic or descriptive words that ha[d] obvious association with the Complainant’s business” and still others “misspelling the mark by changing a letter in the mark to a different letter,” and more.

Typosquatting is defined as the “intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.” Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO January 21, 2003). In general, a respondent’s registration of a domain name that misspells a trademark, or is composed of added, substituted or transposed letters that varies the prototype, is not merely confusingly similar but implies knowledge and suggests targeting the trademark. While a pay-per-click website can be “use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” [paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy], it fails when it is used for “displaying links to third-party websites, some of which provide credit report viewing services in direct competition with Complainant.” Piggybacking on a complainant’s business model developed and advertised prior to trademark registration but after the complainant has established itself in the marketplace does not support registration in good faith; rather, it is abusive conduct.

In the interest of assisting fellow web specialists in producing world class mobile web sites, I am publishing my definitive list of dotMobi Website Guidelines & Considerations. Please feel free to use them as a reference, but please do not republish or steal my work sans credit.

Domain Names

About 23% of mobile sites use .mobi domain names. In South Africa it is interesting to note that some of the big names have purchased their domain names but are not using them. This makes it difficult for users to find sites.

They are also not using the other defacto standards! If you are offering a mobile site please ensure you  use at least one of the following defacto naming standards:

www.yourdomainname.mobi

m.yourdomainname.com

mobile.yourdomainname.com

www.yourdomainname.com/mobile

Many banks and other sites are using USSD Dial strings to send mobile menu’s & sms links to their portals. This is very popular and effective in South Africa especially in the Cellphone Banking space.

Other ways of getting traffic to your site are to identify mobile visitors of your .com site to your .mobi site. Twitter & Facebook do this. DO not forget to give users a link to the standard site from the mobile site so that they do have the option to switch between the two.

Google has a novel approach, if you visit http://www.google.mobi/ on your desktop or laptop browser, it offers to sms the site url to your phone. This works well and is quick and efficient.

Simplicity

• Less is more
• There is little space on the screen
• Mobile internet connections that are often slower than internet connections
• Users need to access to what is most crucial
• As little else as possible on the page

Screen Size

• Different mobile devices have different screen sizes but all are very limited & SMALL
• Screen real-estate should be tailored & optimized to 1 specific screen size to ensure layout & design integrity of the site
• Studies show that 240 x 320 (a.k.a. QVGA) is the preferred standard for mobile development

Content

• Different mobile devices have different screen sizes but all are very limited & small
• Screen real-estate should be tailored & optimized to 1 specific screen size to ensure layout & design integrity of the site
• Studies show that 240 x 320 is a preferred standard for mobile development

Images

• Static images only. DO not insert flash or movie files or animations or client side scripts
• No image maps
• Some handsets do not support images
• Some handsets allow users to disable images
• Minimal use of images
• If you must use them, make them relevant & supply meaningful ALT text so that mobile devices can use the text descriptions
• Smaller than 100 pixels
• The image height & width should be defined in the source code
• Do not use background images, the small screen size already compromises the readability of the page and a background image will make it worse

Layout

• One column ONLY
• Up & Down Scrolling ONLY
• NO horizontal scrolling
• Align content to the left
• Be consistent – Similar alignment & layout on all pages
• ALL non-essential links & marginal content at the bottom of the page §Minimize white space
• Avoid table padding
• Avoid wide margins
• Widths & margins are detrimental to good handheld display
• No frames §Avoid tables
• No pop ups
• No dynamic effects

Design

• Style Sheets govern the design of the pages
• Limit the number of different colours used on a page
• Be consistent in your use of colours
• Use high contrast for text & images
• Some much older handsets are monochrome so keep images & contrast in mind
• Older handsets reduce or strip out images
• Keep text colour in mind
• On small screens, readability takes on much more importance
• Good colour choices ensure that the site is easy on the eyes

Text

• Headers have increased importance in mobile design
• Limit paragraph & header text size
• Handsets have standard font sizes.
• Headings or large (emphasised) type should not be larger than twice the size of paragraph text §Keep colour & contrast in mind
• On small screens, readability takes on much more importance
• Good colour choices ensure that your site is easy on the eyes

Navigation

• There is NO MOUSE, although some smart phones now have a stylus & touch screen, most will have to use their phone buttons to navigate through the site
• Use text rather than images for navigation labels & headers §Keep textual descriptions as short as possible §Use link anchors to help users navigate e.g. Next,Back to top,Home ,
• Clearly distinguish selected items
• Do Not repeat the SAME navigation on every page
• Use ordered lists of links & make use of mobile access keys

Forms

• Limit the use of forms
• Forms muse be as SIMPLE as possible
• Allow user to make selections instead of entering free text
• limit text input elements
• Keep responses needed short
• It is difficult for mobile users to input many characters
• Quick forms & easy
• A mobile user cant be expected to fill in pages of detail
• Be aware that mobile users are more likely to make mistakes due to misspelling or mistyping)when filling out forms

Testing

• View the site through an emulator or on a handset is essential to you understanding how your content, design & layout will look to the end user

Image credit: imboredatwork.org

Everyone is in the pursuit of earning more money than what their daily wages offer. Some need it to clear debts, some want to taste the life of a millionaire, while some others just like accumulating money from an early age in order to retire by the time they turn 21. Indeed! The best way to crack the financial code for most people these days is by creating a website.

SEO experts in Dubai help you choose and register an appropriate domain name before you can start working on your ideas. But while creating a site, see that your decisions border your ideas 100% of the time. As for the technical aspect, it can be taken care of by web developers and designers from web marketing services.

You may have heard that creating a website is not a simple process. That’s correct because you have to keep yourself updated, every step of the way and take pains to create your site correctly. At the same time, you require the greens to be invested wherever necessary. Therefore, apart from creating domain names and then websites, people also register domain names at web hosting sites in the intention of getting them sold to a third party. Registering domain names is like an investment too. Someone is bound to like your name and buy it from you.

Online Marketing Dubai by Cosmos Star Consultants helps newbie’s and those with established websites make it big on the WWW. We wish you the best in your endeavors.

Successor trademark holders complaining about domain names registered before they acquired their interests have the added burden of not having all the documentary facts and sometimes no explanation for long delays in taking action against a registrant . This was illustrated recently in Shem, LLC v. Solytix, Inc., D2009-0739 (WIPO July 30, 2009) for <autocar.com> and <autocar.org> in which the complainant acquired the 1905 trademark in 2001 and waited 8 years to complain about domain names registered in 1998 and 1999.

A more successful outcome is reported in Layby Services Australia Pty Ltd. v. Chrisco Hampers Australia Ltd., D2009-1066 (WIPO November 3, 2009) in which the complainant, a new owner of a gift business commenced a timely proceeding against a respondent who registered <hamperking.com> prior to the Complainant’s assignor acquiring a trademark registration for HAMPER KING. It had to overcome the difficulty of explaining why it was entitled to a domain name registered before a trademark was officially issued. Ordinarily, the lacuna of evidence supports the respondent unless there is proof that the trademark was in use and distinctive prior to issuance that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant and its trademark. Generally,

in these circumstances the WIPO panelists’ consensus view is that when a domain name is registered before a trademark right is established, the registration of the domain name was not in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right.

The complainant’s task is harder when dealing with a generic word or phrase, of which there have been a number of recent examples. MediaWhiz Holdings, Inc. v. Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Manager, MediaWiz Services Pvt Ltd., D2009-1227 (WIPO October 28, 2009) (<mediawiz.biz>)

Layby Services, however, offered sufficient evidence to prove that the Respondent competed in the same market and more importantly in an exchange of correspondence prior to the commencement of the proceedings had disclosed that it was using the domain name in bad faith; that, in fact, it “provides prima facie evidence that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its website.” The “act of redirecting Internet users to other websites by using the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark through a domain name that incorporates a trademark to a website unconnected to the trademark owner, does not constitute bona fide offering of goods and services.” However, proof of bad faith use does not necessarily support bad faith registration.

In Layby Services the Complainant supplemented its evidence persuasively in response to a Procedural Order, which is a gift to parties who take advantage and a vexation for those unable to respond affirmatively. See, for example, CSS Polymers Inc. v. Robert Beirne, D2009-1179 (WIPO November 9, 2009), in which in response to the Respondent’s excuse that “[d]ue to the lack of better record-keeping and the Panel’s request that Complainant CSS Polymers respond within only four (4) days, I am unable to locate documents showing use of the `CSS Polymers’ trademark in 2002” the Panel stated that the Order “was intended to benefit Complainant, not burden it.” Further, it “was incumbent upon Complainant to assemble the evidence it needed to carry its burden on the elements of the Policy and to support assertions in [the] declaration before commencing this proceeding.”

Big Ben is what they call me. I’m 6 feet 3 inches and web hosting is what I do. But what seperates my web hosting business and others is the mere idea of what I thenk web hosting should consist of.

Definition of Web Hosting: A services that helps individuals or businesses make there websites accessible via the World Wide Web.

Big Ben’s Definition of Web Hosting: A services that helps individuals or businesses become noticed via the World Wide Web.

Theres a very important difference in my definition and the regular definition. And it is noticed. While the other companies just help the individual or business have a website that can be viewed on the web. They don’t help the people get the getting started, or getting customers. Another words those people are on there own. My business helps people understand how to use there accounts and help there websites get notice.

Example: You have website that has state of the art technology, you offer a unique service, you’ve got it made. But theres a problem just having that site on the web doesn’t mean your people are going to find it, go to it, and purchase your services. You have to know how to help people get to your site, and know about you. That is part of my job.

You may think that my services may be more expensive then the average hosting company. But the truth is for the cheapest plan purchase for a year plus a domain name you would only pay $45.33. That’s right just $2.99 per month for hosting plus $9.45 for a domain name for a year. Big Ben’s cheapest competitor on the web is offering services for $4.99 per month. And you don’t get the assistance in getting you site out there.

So what’s the catch? The catch is I hope you become successful. If you don’t I know I tried my hardest to help you. And if you do I can say well done, I know I’ve done my part.

A long line of decisions holds that laches is not applicable to a UDRP proceeding, but waiting too long to assert a claim weakens the complainant’s case. The majority in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. FanMail.com, LLC., D2009-1139 (WIPO November 2, 2009) noted that “the considerable delay in bringing this case does color the merits of the dispute.” Although stopping short of finding that laches applied, it nevertheless uttered a heretofore heretical thought, namely that it was “prepared to acknowledge the possible applicability, in appropriate and limited circumstances, of laches in a case under the Policy.”

The possibility is based on a reading of paragraph 15(a) of the Rules which states that “a panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” This view “is not unreasonable … given that, in many if not most jurisdictions in the United States and in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, the formerly sharp line between law and equity has been blurred if not effaced by the amalgamation of law and equity. Indeed, it would appear unlikely that when they used the expression “principles of law that it deems applicable,” those who drafted the Rules meant “principles of law but not equity.”

Lapse of time works against the complainant if in the interim the respondent has either gained a right or interest in the disputed domain name or so much time has elapsed without explanation that the complainant’s allegation of abusive registration is undermined. “[T]he longer the time between the registration of a disputed domain name and the assertion of the Complainant’s rights the harder, in general, the inference of bad faith registration becomes to sustain,” YIT Corporation v. Future Media Architects Inc., D2007-0588 (WIPO July 27, 2007). Past decisions generally focus on respondent’s defense under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy that it has acquired a legitimate interest in the domain name by through bona fide use “before notice of the dispute.”

In Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas Respondent registered <razorbacks.com> in 1995. One panelist who joined the majority to express the heretical view about laches, stepped back from applying it in this case, although his colleague would have done so. The third member of the Panel then joined the first in rejecting a laches defense because the “Respondent did not present any hard evidence of prejudice it suffered as a result of Complainant’s considerable delay.” The (new) majority held that

although there may be no evidence of actual financial prejudice suffered by Respondent and although the whole matrix may not be properly characterized as laches, in Panelist Brown’s view, the delay and lack of explanation for it strengthen Respondent’s case for a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and negate Complainant’s case that the Domain Name has been used in bad faith. That is so because the unchallenged evidence is that Complainant by inactivity encouraged Respondent to continue to use the Domain Name in the way in which Complainant knew it was being used.

The shifting majority notwithstanding all three members of the Panel agreed that the Complainant failed to sustain its burden of proof that the Respondent lacked a legitimate interest in the domain name which it was using in its vanity mail service. Also, “razerbacks” is not exclusively associated with the Complainant; for some, it “is just a hog”.

There are domain names though similar are not necessarily confusingly similar. They sit on the borderline, and not surprisingly their status may be viewed differently by different panelists. In the same way that a an original registrant is regarded differently from an assignee (the good faith of one is not heritable by the other for example), so there may be a question whether a domain name that is similar but not confusing in one context becomes confusingly similar in another. The Panel in Netflix Inc. v. Anthony Fox, FA0909001287043 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 2, 2009) finds no confusing similarity between NETFLIX and <netlix.com>, but instead of stopping his analysis and simply dismissing the complaint (which one would expect when a complainant fails to prove jurisdiction) he “elects to consider the remaining two elements of the Policy” (although Why is unclear) but doing so finds the Respondent to have a legitimate interest and registered the domain name in good faith. Therefore, even if he had found the domain name confusingly similar instead of the other way around, this particular Respondent, the original registrant of <netlix.com> had a good defense. However, it is not clear whether the absence of an “f” would help the assignee where (based on the use of the domain name) the composition of the domain name held by an assignee may appear to be a case of typosquatting.

In concluding that there was no confusing similarity between NETFLIX and <netlix.com> the Panel cites iLeads.com LLC v. Electronic Marketing Systems, Inc., FA0308000187636 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 13, 2003) in which that Panel (who also analyzed further than necessary) found that although there was no confusing similarity between ILEADS and <aleads.com> and while the Respondent had a legitimate interest in the generic “leads” it nevertheless registered the domain name in bad faith. Does that mean, If there had been confusing similarity the Respondent’s legitimate interest would nevertheless have trumped bad faith? Dictum, very confusing, but the twists and turns are fascinating.

However, there is a classification difference between a NETFLIX and a ILEADS. One is arbitrary (and registered), the other generic (and not registered). But, what if the respondent is not the original registrant and the assignee uses the domain name in bad faith? There are decisions that attempt to answer this question. In Certipost NV v. Virtual Point Inc., D2008-1183 (WIPO September 25, 2008), for example, the registrant was a different entity than the respondent and even though owned by the same principal in a different business capacity the Panel held that the respondent was an assignee. “[T]he Panel sees no injustice in the ‘internal’ transfer of the Domain Name within the wider business group, producing the ‘side effect’ of giving the third party trade mark owner who has been subjected to the bad faith use, an opportunity to invoke the Policy which it would not otherwise have had (because it could not show that the original registration of the disputed domain name had been made in bad faith).” Of course in Certipost, the Panel found that CERTIPOST (an invented word like Netflix) and <certipost.com> were confusingly similar.

Similarity between a domain name and parts of a trade mark inherently generic or descriptive are not legally confusing. Thomas Cook Holdings Ltd. v. Aydin, D2000-0676 (WIPO September 11, 2000) (CLUB 18-30 and <hot18to30.com>). Sharing three quarters of the phrase – “and grow rich” – is not enough, Napoleon Hill Foundation v. pmweb, FA0907001275894 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 28, 2009) THINK AND GROW RICH and <flipandgrowrich.com>. “Having ‘flip’ instead of ‘think’ as the initial word changes the meaning of the phrase. The phrase ‘think and grow rich’ is general and does not suggest real estate transactions, while the phrase ‘flip and get rich’ suggests ‘flipping’ read estate to get rich.” Although the Panel in StreetPrices.com, Inc. v. Nett Corp., FA0908001280020 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 10, 2009) denied the complaint against <streetprice.com> the dissent would have gone further and dismissed on the grounds that the domain name is not confusingly similar to STREETPRICES. A trademark holder can claim no more than it has been granted, but the Netflix/Netlix type of case can take on a different colortion in the hands of an assignee, particularly where the trademark has risen to a higher level of recognition in the marketplace.

First it was authorized resellers whose incorporation of a complainant’s trademark was deemed to be legitimate if they met the 4-part test originally announced in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO November 6, 2001). Subsequently, the legitimacy was extended to unauthorized resellers, distributors and consultants. The 4-part test requires that the respondent must (1) actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (2) use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods; (3) must on its website accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents; and (4) not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.

Domain names may undoubtedly be confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, but a trademark holder cannot exclude non-competiting parties from making a bona fide offering of goods or services based on the complainant’s products. A number of cases have involved cars or automobile parts[DaimlerChrysler A.G. v. Donald Drummonds, D2001-0160 (WIPO June 18, 2001 )]; the Respondent in Oki Data registered <okidataparts.com> for its business of selling and repairing OKIDATA products and parts. SAP AG has been a Complainant in some earlier cases charging abusive registration. It is a well known and widely-used name of the Complainant’s software products. Earlier this year SAP AG complained about <unisap.com> registered by UniSAP, Inc., D2009-0297 (WIPO April 28, 2009) (WIPO May 29, 2009) (See Note for May 29, 2009). More recently it commenced a proceeding against SAP User List, D2009-1285 (WIPO November 8, 2009) in an attempt to capture <sapuserlist.com>).

The Respondent in SAP User List is neither a reseller in the traditional sense nor a distributor. It is “the supplier of lists of users of ‘SAP’ software to other companies seeking to target the users as potential clients.” While this service is related to the Complainant’s software products it is targeting very different markets. “The Complainant argues that ‘[e]ven if [the] Respondent needed to refer to the Company SAP, the collateral trademark use necessary does not confer the right to use SAP’s trademark as a domain name’.” The argument fails for the same reason that Oki Data failed. “A reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the use fits certain requirements.”

It’s been well-known for some time that Google particularly favours keyword-rich domain names. (Whether this continues with the forthcoming Caffeine update, of course, remains to be seen). Whilst this couldn’t come under the category of “free SEO”, it can certainly be affordable if you want to get some Google love without having to spend ages building links.

My recommendation here would be to register a domain name as close to your chosen keywords as possible. For example, a site promoting discount codes and discount vouchers could register the domain www.discountcodesandvouchers.co.uk. This gives them an instant headstart for these two search phrases, and is not especially expensive.

The use of the .co.uk domain extension is indicative to Google that the site is based in (or at least, wishes to get traffic from) the UK. I would always recommend purchasing the .com extension at the same time, though, if possible – if only to prevent other people getting hold of it.

Ideally, any site targeting the UK should be also be hosted in the UK – though there has been much controversy recently about .com US-based domains showing up significantly in the Google UK results. Once all the noise has quietened down, though, we’re left with the same idea, that UK hosting is best for sites targeting the UK.

Once you have your keyword-rich domain, with the site hosted in the country you’re targeting, you can then also alert Google through its Webmaster Central service, that your site is targeting a particular country, thus giving you maximum opportunity for achieving good listings as soon as possible.

The Rules of the Policy limit each party to one pleading (Paragraphs 3 [complaint] and 5 [answer]), which can be supplemented in either of two ways, by the parties submitting supplementary material requested by the Panel under Paragraph 12 of the Rules or with the Panel’s permission upon a party’s request. Paragraph 12 is generally invoked when the Panel seeks additional proof to corroborate a party’s contentions. There is no explicit provision in the Rules for a reply and sur-reply. However, Nat. Arb. Forum’s Supplementary Rules authorize the parties to supplement their pleadings as of right under Rule 7. There is no comparable provision in the WIPO Supplementary Rules, although the WIPO Overview at paragraph 4.2 acknowledges as a Majority View that at its most liberal panelists exercise discretion to accept supplemental material. Nevertheless, there is a Minority View that takes the position that “[u]nless the panel specifically solicits a supplemental filing, it will not consider a supplemental filing in its decision.”

Supplemental filings elicit a palette of views in Denver Newspaper Agency v. Jobing.com LLC., FA0908001282148 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 16, 2009). The majority accepted the Respondent’s late filed answer and gerrymandered the Complainant’s supplementary submission. “Pursuant to the Forum’s interpretation of the Rules [of the UDRP] … the Forum treated the Response as being incomplete because the hard copy was not received on the due date. The Forum therefore notified the Respondent that the Response was deficient under Rule 5.” However, the majority concluded that the “deficiency was minor.”

The more lengthy of the two dissents points out that the “Forum’s interpretation of the Rules to require actual receipt by the Forum of the hard copy on the due date is inconsistent with the UDRP Rules themselves.” The UDRP Rules “require the Respondent to have taken the act of “submitting” the Response within 20 days; it does not require the Respondent to cause the hard copy to be “received” at the ADR provider’s offices within 20 days,” citing his own earlier decision in Free Bridge Auto Sales Inc. v. Larry Ross, FA0903001250951 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 28, 2009) (Ftn 2). The distinction of “served” and “receipt” is well recognized in the litigation fraternity. Depositing papers in the mail or overnight courier satisfies the “service” requirement for post-process submissions. If the electronic version is timely received by the provider it should not be labeled deficient. The Forum, however, extracts a “penalty” for deficient response. The dissent also “object[s] to the Forum’s requirement that the Respondent pay a fee of $400 in conjunction with its re-filing of the Response as a Supplemental Submission under Supplemental Rule 7” because it is “inconsistent with the Rules and the general policies underlying the treatment of respondents in the UDRP.”

The gerrymandering occurs when the supplemental material is not supplemental but either repetitious or should have been argued in the complaint. Kent House Ltd. v. RN, WebReg, FA0403000244527 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 4, 2004) (Dissent: “supplemental submissions should only be accepted if they are rebutting defenses that could not reasonably have been anticipated, or to bring new facts or precedent to the Panel’s attention.”) The majority in Denver Newspaper took as much of the Supplemental Submission as it needed and disregarded the part that “did not address any new legal principles or facts that could not have been anticipated in the Complaint.” The less lengthy dissent would have accepted the entirety of the Complainant’s Additional Submission “because it was submitted in accordance with the Forum’s published Supplemental Rules, which govern this proceeding.”

Thank you for Your trust chosen the e-Padi Network as solution of Your Web hosting and Domain.
The Domain registered at e-Padi Network, will get full access to Domain Management, You can pointing the domain to Your Server, inclusive manage of NameServer and Transfer Out to another Domain Registrants.
Registration Domain at e-Padi Network do not fasten the You to obliged Hosting with us. You are free to transfer Your domain to another server without permit from us.

If You have owned the domain and want to use Web Hosting only at e-Padi Network, Please change Your current NameServer to:
NS1.e-padi.com
NS2.e-padi.com

DOMAINS INTERNATIONAL TLDs
TLDs    Rp.                           USD$
.COM     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.NET     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.ORG     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.ASIA     Rp.200.000 /     $22
.BIZ     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.US     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.INFO     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.NAME     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.TV     Rp.345.000 /     $38.3
.CC     Rp.255.000 /     $28.3
.EU     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.CO.UK     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.ME.UK     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.ORG.UK     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.MN     Rp.520.000 /     $57.7
.BZ     Rp.265.000 /     $29.4
.WS     Rp.120.000 /     $13
.ME     Rp.335.000 /     $37
.MOBI     Rp.235.000 /     $26
.IN     Rp.200.000 /     $22
.CO.IN     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.NET.IN     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.GEN.IN     Rp.100.000 /     $11
.FIRM.IN     Rp.100.000 /     $11

# Minimum 1 (one) year contract for each domains TLDs
# Transfer domain Rp. 120.000, next year remain to Rp. 120.000 /year
# Price NOT include Web Hosting.
# Buy domain name Now, Free Privacy Protect for your domain name
# Login to Domain Manager:
URL Domain Manager : Http://manage.e-padi.com

DOMAINS INDONESIA

You will NOT get the Domain Manager for registration domain .id. If you wish to change settings for Your Domain .id, please email us, and we will conveniently to assist you to settings Your Domain .ID which You buy here.

TLDs    Rp.                        USD$
.CO.ID     Rp.99.000 /     $11
.NET.ID     Rp.99.000 /     $11
.OR.ID     Rp.49.000 /     $5.5
.AC.ID     Rp.49.000 /     $5.5
.SCH.ID     Rp.49.000 /     $5.5
.GO.ID     Rp.49.000 /     $5.5
.MIL.ID     Rp.49.000 /     $5.5
.WEB.ID     Free *)         $0

Note:
*) Free domain for order minimum package hosting Premium (100Mb = Rp.120.000/year)

Condition and Rules for Register Domain .ID
- Domain .CO.ID for Company
- Domain .NET.ID for Telecommunication and IT Comp
- Domain .OR.ID for institution, and organization
- Domain .GO.ID for governmental
- Domain .SCH.ID for school (SD/SLTP/SLTA)
- Domain .AC.ID for university S1+
- Domain .WEB.ID for personal
- Domain .MIL.ID for military     dot ID, .id

Required Documents for Register Domain .ID

1. Domain .CO.ID: scan of KTP, SIUP/TDP, NPWP, and Akta Notaris (cover 1 and page 1)
2. Domain .NET.ID: scan of KTP, SIUP/TDP (License Letter of Telecommunications (ISP, Telco, Cellular, VSAT, etc), NPWP, Akta Notaris (cover 1 and page 1), and Letter of Authorized Owned Brand (if available)
3. Domain .OR.ID: scan of KTP and Letter of Foundation Akta
4. Domain .WEB.ID: scan of KTP
5. Domain .AC.ID: scan of KTP, SK Depdiknas Pendirian Lembaga, Akta Notaris Pendirian/SK Rektor (Director of Lembaga), and attorney letter from Director Lembaga about registration Domain .ID
6. Domain .GO.ID: scan of KTP, Attorney Letter, and Requested Letter signed by Sekjen/Sekut/Sekmen for Center Government or Sekda for Local Government (Permen No. 28/PER/M.KOMINFO/9/2006)
7. Domain .SCH.ID: scan of KTP, Requested Letter from Headmaster, and Attorney Letter
8. Domain .MIL.ID: scan KTP, Requested Letter minimum from head of military that Apply, and Attorney Letter

All of Required Documents should be send to billing[at]e-padi.com
24/7 Customer Support
You are welcome can discuss with our expert team anytime.

ATTENTION!
Sorry, we are NOT ACCEPT registration domain .ID without order Hosting Package.
Minimum 1 year contract for each Domains Name National.
Rate Exchange currency USD$1 = Rp.9.000

More information and order required : http://e-padi.com/domain.htm

What’s In A Name?

A rose by any other name may still a rose, but the wrong domain name can be a big thorny bush. Let’s face it, the right name online is the equal to the right location in commercial real estate. Without a brick and mortar presence your domain name be comes your visual storefront.

So let’s take a step back and first define what a domain name is. A domain name is an identification label that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority, or control in the Internet, based on the Domain Name System (DNS). Domain names are used in various networking contexts and application-specific naming and addressing purposes. They are organized in subordinate levels (subdomains) of the DNS root domain, which is nameless. The first-level set of domain names are the top-level domains (TLDs), including the generic top-level domains (gTLDs), such as the prominent domains com, net and org, and the country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Below these top-level domains in the DNS hierarchy are the second-level and third-level domain names that are typically open for reservation by end-users that wish to connect local area networks to the Internet, run web sites, or create other publicly accessible Internet resources. The registration of these domain names is usually administered by domain name registrars who sell their services to the public.

Whew…now that we have gotten past the tech stuff, let’s talk about the real deal. How important the name itself is.

• Your Domain Name is YOUR identity.
• It becomes your Brand.
• Allows for optimal SEO. (Search Engine Optimization)
• Tells your customer Who you are and What you do.

How to Know What Name to Select

Picking the proper name is vital to your entire business as it can either clearly identify who you are or it confuse your customer altogether. Be sure to research what keywords are hot and what are not as it pertains to your specific brand. You will want try to use keywords that have a solid search rate, but does not have a comp rate that will be too hard to penetrate. Focus in and look at your specific business, check your competitors, then start check for available possibilities.

One place I recommend to start is at Website Solutions Network. You can check them out at: www.WebsiteSolutionsNetwork.com 

There you can search for names and actually buy the name for a nominal fee. In fact, they will even host it for you and they  throw in some tools to help you build a website and get you started all at no additional charge. And we all know free is good.

So go out there and Play The Name Game. Do it with confidence and you will be well on your way to success in your business. That is, in fact, the Name of  the game. 

Until Next Time,

Mike

So you want a website but don’t know how to get started? Here are a couple of the very basics you’ll need to know and what you’ll need.

1) Domain name(s): After years of using (and increasingly becoming dissatisfied with) GoDaddy, I’m now a huge fan of NameCheap. Go there and search for your chosen domain name. The domain name should contain your company name and/or keywords related to your products or services. It’s best to get the .com name if at all possible, but it’s also a good idea to get other domain extensions as well, for 2 purposes:
a. To have them redirect to your primary site, this increasing the number of inbound links to your site, and
b. So no one else gets the domain name and takes traffic from you that would otherwise go to your site.
It’s also a good idea to have multiple domain names – as they are typically cheap, around $10 / year or less for many. It’s an inexpensive way to get additional visitors to your site and also to have your site rank higher in the search engines for the various keywords in your domain name.

2) Hosting: Now that you have your domain name, you’ll need a place to host your website. Many companies provide this service, and some are better than others. I’m currently in the process of migrating all my websites’ hosting to HostGator. As of this writing, they provide hosting for an unlimited number of domains for as little as $7.95 / month. If you’ve got more than one website, that pricing makes it a no-brainer!

3) An autoresponder: If you’re going to be managing an email list of any kind (which you’ll want to do if you’re marketing online), you’ll need this type of service as it will make your life a lot easier. What does an autoresponder do? It allows you to automatically send emails on a predetermined schedule of your choosing, automate the email list registration and confirmation process, let you segment your lists in different ways, and more. There are many “flavors” of autoresponders on the market, with varying capabilities and pricing structure. One of the best, in my opinion and from what I’ve heard from a large number of highly successful online marketers, is Aweber.

4) A website: you can build your own, either from scratch or from a template or website building software, or you can hire someone to do this for you. There are many considerations that impact how your website is viewed by the search engines, and we’ll cover a lot of this in later articles.

5) Analytics: You’ll want to know how much traffic you’re getting, where it’s coming from, what terms are searched on that bring visitors to your site, and more. A free tool that Google provides is Google Analytics. It’s a small snippet of code that you install on each page of your site that you want measured, and you can set it up to email you every so often (e.g. weekly) with reports that tell you about your site’s visitors. You can get it at www.google.com/analytics.

I hope this helps, and stay tuned for more!

FTC Disclaimer: Some links are “affiliate” links that pay me a commission if you purchase.

Also note: I rarely recommend anything that I am not using or have not used myself. I do not recommend anything that I would not use myself. I am serious about integrity and character.

Tired of the high costs of dedicated hosting and underperforming, and unreliable shared hosting solutions? VPS hosting truly combines the best of both worlds. You get all the security and functionality of a dedicated server but at a fraction of the cost.

More Details

Proving that a domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark is but one-third of the journey; the easiest part since on that issue the complainant controls the proof. However, if the disputed domain name was registered prior to the complainant acquiring its trademark it can prevail only on proof that a subsequent registrant lacks rights or legitimate interests and is using the domain name in bad faith, from which registration in bad faith can be inferred. Against the original registrant, even lack of rights or legitimate interests is insufficient to prove bad faith. These are the basic rules. A trademark holder of a subsequently acquired right is entitled to no more than trademark law allows.

The Complainant in MediaWhiz Holdings, Inc. v. Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Manager, MediaWiz Services Pvt Ltd., D2009-1227 (WIPO October 28, 2009) acquired its trademark in 2006 and alleges first use in commerce in 2002. It claims to have registered its domain name <mediawhiz.com> in 1999 prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (2001), but of course that fact is irrelevant since in 1999 the Complainant had no trademark right under any theory.

Proof that the respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name whether as subsequent purchaser or as original registrant is conclusive against the complainant. This was noted recently in Berenson & Company, Inc. v. Berenson Corp. c/o Babij, Terry, FA0909001283183 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 23, 2009) in which the Respondent was a subsequent owner of the disputed domain name and is further illustrated in MediaWhiz in which there were no intermediate owners.

Clear though the law is it seems as though there are always parties (and lawyers) eager for the fray. In MediaWhiz, the Complainant chose to try its luck. “Faced with evidence immediately apparent on the home page of the Website that the Respondent, MediaWiz Services Private Limited, had been established under the name ‘MediaWiz’ since 1995, and knowing that its rights in respect of the name ‘Media Whiz’ went back to, at the earliest, 2002, the Complainant nonetheless chose to commence this proceeding in circumstances where its odds of success, should the Respondent choose to contest the proceeding, were minuscule.” The Panel found

The Complainant’s allegations of non-use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name are, on the facts, not sustainable.

Insofar as the Respondent may have commenced (or, indeed, re-commenced) use of its name in the U.S. market, the Complainant is, of course, free to assert its rights in the Trade Mark in the U.S. courts against the Respondent.

On the evidence available to the Panel, however, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Respondent, which has been commonly known as “MediaWiz Services Private Limited” since 1995 in at least the Indian marketplace, has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Representation by counsel is no panacea; the consequence, a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

You’re in a hurry and that’s the only reason you’ve made the phone call to begin with.

You just want the answer NOW. You know you can get the answer through just a wee bit of trial and error, but you have to run out now and you plan on doing this LABORIOUS task later, and you just w…a…n…t (yes, say in a whiny way) to be ready when you get back so you can get to work on something you REALLY know you WON’T like doing, but that MUST BE DONE.

So you make the call to: TECHNICAL SUPPORT. No names, no put-downs here – it could be for a refrigerator, a dishwasher, a pc, a laptop, an ISP, a whois change – WHATEVER. And the guy knows LESS than you.  That’s not a brag; IT’S A DISAPPOINTMENT!!!!!

yOU called because you HATE – or severely dislike (Yes, Mother, I remember – NEVER say hate) – the rote task you will have to do – OVER AND OVER – in order to accomplish what you must…and you’re on the phone with someone who is having trouble understanding you, LOOKING things up in a book (more training, please before you get on the phones by yourself – I have done  such work, so I feel authorized to say so) … And he keeps repeating as he’s looking up, and he’s honest, poor soul, and doesn’t hide that he’s looking up….as he goes along…trying, really trying to help.

AND………SO………you go through all the testing while you’re on the phone with him – figure it out – and now know WHAT MUST BE DONE – even MORE steps than you imagined (and they call this the super highway!??? – I’d say there are PLENTY OF YIELDS and blinking yellows around this cyberspace).

Anyway…guess it was just meant to be…and guess the bright side is, I had company while figuring it all out, which I couldn’t seem to find the patience for on my own….so

Thank you, Mr. Customer Service Man.  I have yet to do the LABORIOUS work that awaits me…but I now I know how!

-beeha

The phrase “retroactive bad faith” comes from two recent cases, same panelist, City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Zander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRAL VE, D-2009-0643 (WIPO July 3, 2009) and Octogen Pharmacal Company, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, Inc. / Rich Sanders and Octogen e-Solutions, D2009-0786 (WIPO August 19, 2009). “Retroactive” refers to bad faith registration. The panelist proposes a new way of construing the Policy to establish that the respondent satisfies its contractual responsibilities.

WIPO Final Report contemplated a light investigatory duty for domain name acquisition insofar as researching trademark databases but this view came to be increasingly questioned as outdated. Observing the changing nature of the domain name business panelists began thinking that high volume registrants belonged in a different category and should be held to an enhanced investigatory standard. The new factor proposed in Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, D2005-1304 (WIPO February 24, 2006) focused on “acquisition of large swaths of domain names through the use of automated programs.” That case and others that follow its reasoning ushered in a profound shift in thinking about high volume registrants who pay “no apparent attention … in any particular case to whether the domain name being registered may be identical or confusingly similar to another’s trademark.” According to the Mobile Panel “even a cursory search on search engines like Yahoo! and Google would have shown that MOBILCOM is a trademark.”

There was, however, immediate push back to the Mobile approach. The Panel in Promatic International Limited v. Name Administration Inc., D2006-0673 (WIPO July 19, 2006) held that “[w]hile the Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent from a batch of lapsed domain names by way of an automated process, this Panel is uncomfortable with the concept of constructive bad faith.” The Panel in Aubert International SAS and Aubert France SA v. Tucows.com Co., D2008-1986 (WIPO March 17, 2009) noted that the Mobile approach “is not universally accepted.” The discomfort with the approach is that it establishes a dual standard, a heavier duty on high volume registrants, lighter on registrants of one or two domain names and the question is, Why should this be?

The challenge to the dual standard has been further advanced in the City Views and Octogen decisions, in a surprising way. The panelist’s view is that it “seems at a minimum inconsistent to require a registrant registering multiple domain names to perform some kind of trademark search in order to establish good faith registration, while a registrant registering only one or two domain names is not required to do any search whatsoever.” His epiphany has a curious backstory. It is not merely discomfort with the Mobile approach, but a conclusion that panelists have misconstrued the Policy; have wandered from the true path.

The City Views and Octogen approach is based on a close reading of the representations and warranties provision of the registration agreement and the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February 18, 2000). In the Panel’s view the representations and warranty provision

not only imposes a duty on the part of the registrant to conduct an investigation at the time of registration, but also includes a representation and warranty by the registrant that it will not now or in the future use the domain name in violation of any laws or regulations.

This assumes that the representations and warranties provision must be read into the Policy, that it is an essential element, indeed “integral” in determining bad faith. “This effectively imposes on the registrant a continuing duty to ensure that the domain name is not used in violation of another’s rights and clearly covers intellectual property rights and the laws protecting them, including copyright and trademark.” Moreover, the registrant’s representation and warranty “is not limited to the moment at which the registrant registers the domain name; rather, it extends to any use of the domain name in the future.” That means that every registrant, be it a high volume acquirer or of one or two domain names only, is responsible to determine whether it is infringing another’s rights either prior to registration or at renewal of registration. “This representation and warranty is not limited to the moment at which the registrant registers the domain name; rather, it extends to any use of the domain name in the future.”

Telstra is invoked for its holding that bad faith can be posited on passive use of the disputed domain name. “Just as in the Telstra analysis of passive use, whether the future use of a domain name constitutes retroactive bad faith registration will necessarily depend on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of any given case.” In Octogen, the Panel found “retroactive bad faith”; it did not in City Views. However, there is an explanation for the bad faith in Octogen, namely that the Respondent could be said to have registered the domain name for its employer; that it had no right to claim a legitimate interest at the time it registered the domain name. Both cases are cited as controlling authority in Denver Newspaper Agency v. Jobing.com LLC., FA0908001282148 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 16, 2009).