Sex.biz: A Very Unsexy Decision

[Ari GoldbergerAri Goldberger is verified member.]

In another horrible decision under the STOP rules, the domain name SEX.BIZ has been ordered transferred.

www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/124756.htm

 

[dtobias]

I posted that one here a few days ago... you're late!

 

[pljones]

This decision is horrible, and more discussion on it can be found further on this board here: http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10453

 

[Ari GoldbergerAri Goldberger is verified member.]

I posted that one here a few days ago... you're late!

SORRY.

 

[mole]

IMO, the case was well decided.

This was a Korean speculator that had no right to the .BIZ landrush because he didn't have a trademark.

.BIZ is not an extension for clowns to parade. Big business will always win on this extension. Cybersquatters should know that this is not another .com. Why do you think .BIZ is restricted? Restricted from cybersquatters.

 

[Ari GoldbergerAri Goldberger is verified member.]

You aren't suggesting that it is improper for someone to register a .biz domain name with the "intent" to use it for a future business, are you? Even the trademark laws allow registration of marks with a good faith intent to use them in commerce. And, regarding speculating in common word domains. How is this different from someone who invests in a piece of real estate hoping it will have value someday? Would your opinion change if this individual had plans to use sex.biz for an adult content site, or to sell sexually related merchandise?

 

[mole]

Nup ari, not suggesting any of the above.

.BIZ was screwed by ICANN and Neulevel for implementing a system of allocation that was technically unfair to the general internet community and flawed from the very start.

Ask yourself,

What is STOP?

What is SUNRISE?

Within these questions, the answer lies (sic)

 

[dtobias]

You seem to be confusing the .biz startup procedure with the .info sunrise period. The latter required a trademark, but the former didn't.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

One background issue that may have influenced the panelist's decision (which I agree is poorly reasoned anyway) is....

What was the registrant's name?

 

[Lew]

Mole - any TLD that is restricted from buying and selling will have little resale value

If it is truly safe from cybersquatters - it is pretty worthless in the marketplace.

 

[Lew]

....and further....

anyone that loses a "generic" name such as "sex" should make everyone in the domain business very scared.

No one has the right to enforce a TM on such a word - especially in a different country.

It is one the the most stupid decisions from udrp yet - and that says a lot.

 

[bidawinner]

The problem goes back to how these same people keep grabbing the best domains..thats what's flawed..

I do not agree the best way to get them back is to start basing decisions based on quasi TMs of generic words as foundation in these efforts.

 

[dtobias]

Sure... it's true by definition that a domain that can't be resold has no resale value, and it thus follows that it's "worthless" if the metric of domain worth is its resale value. That's iron-clad logic.

However, it's not actually a truthful description of the worth, in a broader sense, of domains. To somebody who is making use of a domain name to give a logical address to whatever they are doing on the Internet (web, email, FTP, etc.), the name can have great worth, even if he can't actually buy or sell it.

Look at it this way: it's currently illegal to buy or sell human organs, but does that mean your heart, lungs, and kidneys are worthless?

I don't think the sale of .edu, .gov, or .mil domains is allowed, but there are plenty of institutions making good use of those domains.

 

[pljones]

Another problem with this decision is that the panel apparently read the earlier Sex.biz decision (http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/112547.htm) and disregarded it because he just felt that the Korean registrant had behaved like a cybersquatter. Except, in this case, the complainant cannot logically demonstrate bad faith. So instead of following the earlier decision and dismissing it, the panel made up an argument to fit what he wanted.

Does anyone know if the registrant has filed a challenge to the decision?

 

[DomainPairs]

Just goes to show that biz domains are a heap of rubbish, it's an ugly extension anyway. I for one haven't and won't buy or deal in any.

 

[Lew]

I don't like the extension myself.

You must be able to sell the names though - how could you be stopped from selling the name if you sold the company with it?

So in that sense they may have a little resale value but they will probably fade away much as all the other TLD's have in the past.

I see nothing so marketable in any of the new extensions that will make them broadly popular. (.info being the strongest)

If you cannot keep the registrations at a certain level, the companies running the TLD's will have to charge more to keep them managed. When that starts happening, what you end up with is an overpriced product that people will start moving away from.