Dallas Cowboys Alleged Domain Price Stupidity

Part of the problem with domain name disputes and domain complaints is the fact so many companies are unwilling to spend a fair amount of money buying already registered domains to protect their valuable brands.

A more or less perfect example is how the Dallas Cowboys representatives made a bid of only $275 (really $275 and not a misprint) for the great Cowboys.com domain name at an auction when other auction bids were in the general area of 200k or higher.

However, strangely the Cowboys allegedly grossly misunderstood the auction price level (in spite of the fact a series of auction bids had worked their way up to more than $200,000., while they were present in-person at the venue) but somehow were oddly thinking a bid of just $275 would buy that great domain. Isn’t that amazing! They say the truth is stranger than fiction. A story like that is so far fetched it could not be made-up!

There is a TV show about the World’s Dumbest and the Dallas Cowboys reps at the domain auction (who I heard it said at least one was a Cowboys attorney) should definitely be on that show based on the alleged auction bidding events.

The proposed world’s dumbest appearance would include the upper management where for just 275k (which should be insignificant to an assumed billion dollar plus business) they later cancelled their absurd $275 bid after being informed the bid should have been $275,000.

This incredible true story about some of the alleged dumbest people on the planet is very hard to believe but this did in fact happen a few years ago.

Starting a Nonprofit Charitable Organization

Have you always thought about or wanted to leave the world a better place than you found it by starting a NonProfit Charitable Organization? A nonprofit charitable organization is a corporation with a main objective in support of issues or matters of private interest, or public concern (such as arts, charities, charitable work, education, research, politics, religion, or some other work) for non-commercial purposes.

There are a few different primary types of non-profits, one of them being a 501(c)(3), which is exempt from income tax and possibly also real estate property taxes, and able to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. While it’s usually beneficial to consult with an attorney who is experienced in the area of nonprofit and charitable law to help avoid mistakes sometimes made when they trying to incorporate a nonprofit on their own, many people have been successfully established a non-profit on their own.

We recently finished redesigning our CharitableOrganizations.com web site, which is a domain name we have owned for 11-years, since 1999. It’s a non-profit’s guide about how to successfully establish a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Charitable corporation.

If anyone can suggest site improvements or relevant new content additions it would be appreciated if you posted any ideas.

We would appreciate any comments you have about charitable organizations and non-profits – which feedback we could also get permission to add to our site as we are looking for charity personal feedback to expand the charitable organizations website, which site you can visit by going to Charitable Organizations site now, or clicking-on the picture.

Non-US Address Results in WIPO Loss Protection!

The FirstQuote.com WIPO Case Decision (domain kept) and its significant issues & deciding factors:

In our view, the most significant aspect of this case and perhaps in every other case ever presented to WIPO is this statement extracted from the case below: Moreover, the Respondent is based in Hong Kong, SAR of China, while protection of the Complainant’s 1STQUOTE-Marks and the Complainant’s business are limited to the United States of America.

That certainly is an incredibly powerful reason to have your domains registered at a non-USA address!

More… the respondent denies the complainant’s contentions. Respondent alleges that the phrase “First Quote” is the featured tagline for thousands of insurance, financial and legal websites and can be heard in numerous ads from agencies asking to “come in today for your first quote”. Upon the Respondent’s allegations, the disputed domain name is comprised of a generic term, which may be used in hundreds of ways, and the Complainant is attempting to leverage the domain name from its owner by using the UDRP forum to reverse hijack the domain.

The Respondent further states that there are 10 active trademarks for FIRST QUOTE in the US, that there is no proof that the Complainant is the sole owner of and creator of the phrase “first quote” and that the disputed domain name was first registered on January 15, 1997, 6 years prior to the Complainant’s claim of “first use” of the 1STQUOTE-trademarks and even before the Complainant was established, which also shows that the phrase had already been popular before complainant tried to claim it.

The Respondent further argues that he never intended to act in bad faith. Furthermore, according to the Respondent’s allegations, the Complainant has no website, brand, domain name, or anything else associated with “first quote” (rather than 1STQUOTE), and the Complainant does not even own the domain name <1stquote.com>. The Respondent also requests the Complainant should be fined for Reverse Domain Hijacking.

With regard to the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or at least constructive notice of the Complainant’s 1STQUOTE-Marks and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith primarily to intentionally attract for financial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by misleading and confusing Internet users who are searching for the Complainant’s website but, merely, misspell or mistype the brand name of the Complainant’s 1STQUOTE on-line application processing service. Respondent has denied these assertions and provided evidence of substantial third parties’ use of the term “first quote”, including the provision of services similar to those of the Complainant.

It seems to be more likely than not to this Panel, the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, as he contends because of its meaning and because of the substantial third party use of the underlying words, and not with a view to the Complainant and its 1STQUOTE-Marks. The Complainant’s 1STQUOTE-Marks are not used identically in the disputed domain name but with a different spelling, and they enjoy less than average distinction, if any distinction at all, as they are made up of two generic words which are commonly used together.

Moreover, the Respondent is based in Hong Kong, SAR of China, while protection of the Complainant’s 1STQUOTE-Marks and the Complainant’s business are limited to the United States of America.As a result, on the balance of evidence, the Complainant has failed in this Panel’s assessment to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, i.e. with the Complainant in mind.

We would appreciate any comments you have about trademarks and WIPO cases – which feedback we could also add to our web site since we are actively looking for personal feedback about trademark issues to expand the web site, which site you can visit by going to Internet Intellectual Property now, or clicking-on the image below. Thank you.

Getting a Trademark Hassle which takes Forever

I finally got my federal trademark application approved by the USPTO. A very long and tedious trademark process which required lots of work, hassle, time and fees, taking nearly 2 years from start to finish.

During the ordeal I even had to deal with a lawfirm who filed a Trademark Trail & Review Board opposition lawsuit against my use on the B.S. grounds it was similar to a clients domain name (which involved different words and also not even a registered mark). Lots of other stuff happened too which I won’t go into at this time.

Here is the long chain of events copied from the uspto.gov website:

2009-11-20 – Law Office Registration Review Completed

2009-11-19 – Allowed for Registration – Principal Register (SOU accepted)

2009-11-16 – Statement of use processing complete

2009-11-15 – Amendment to Use filed

2009-11-15 – TEAS Statement of Use Received

2009-06-09 – Extension 1 granted

2009-05-21 – Extension 1 filed

2009-06-09 – Case Assigned To Intent To Use Paralegal

2009-05-21 – TEAS Extension Received

2008-11-25 – Noa Mailed – SOU Required From Applicant

2008-10-15 – TTAB Release Case To Trademarks

2008-10-15 – Opposition terminated for Proceeding

2008-10-15 – Opposition dismissed for Proceeding

2008-07-10 – Opposition instituted for Proceeding

2008-07-10 – Opposition papers filed

2008-06-10 – Published for opposition

2008-05-21 – Notice of publication

2008-05-05 – Law Office Publication Review Completed

2008-05-02 – Approved for Pub – Principal Register (Initial exam)

2008-05-02 – Previous allowance count withdrawn

2008-04-28 – Withdrawn From Pub – Og Review Query

2008-04-15 – Law Office Publication Review Completed

2008-04-15 – Assigned To LIE

2008-04-09 – Approved for Pub – Principal Register (Initial exam)

2008-04-09 – Examiner’s Amendment Entered

2008-04-09 – Notification Of Examiners Amendment E-Mailed

2008-04-09 – Examiners amendment e-mailed

2008-04-09 – Examiners Amendment -Written

2008-03-31 – Assigned To Examiner

2008-01-06 – Notice Of Design Search Code And Pseudo Mark Mailed

2008-01-05 – New Application Entered In Tram

Pros & Cons of using a Foreign Domain Registrar

Domain name registrar and parking provider Fabulous is a top-notch choice and industry leader with excellent prices, benefits and great support. However, the liability avoidance reason mentioned by Rick at Rick Latona’s site for using a non-US based registrar such as Fabulous.com seems to be a double-edge sword in that I have been told by a well known domain attorney that it could be a big negative. The reason it can become a major issue is apparently due to the dispute rules the plaintiff can file a lawsuit either where the registrant lives *or* where the registrar is located. If they know you are in the US and the registrar is in Australia (in the case of Fabulous.com) and they are a large corporation they may have a law firm or business presence (possibly an office) in AU where they could file suit there instead of in the US thus making you travel all the way down-under to AU for court appearances and also a need for you to hire an AU IP Attorney at high cost.

Lawsuit Against Google Won by Aaron Greenspan

Like most Americans, I (Aaron Greenspan) use Google’s search engine several times a day without so much as a second thought. It was only in 2007 that my company’s relationship with Google, Inc. temporarily escalated to that of a full-fledged customer, when Think Computer Corporation became yet another a Google AdWords advertiser. (AdWords advertisements appear on the right side of the main Google search results.)

Sadly, the several ad campaigns we tried during this brief experiment failed miserably to bring in any new revenue, and so I personally went back to being just another user of Google’s search service — at least until March, 2008. That’s when my company signed up for the flip side of Google’s advertising juggernaut: AdSense. In anticipation of a new product, Think had acquired a brand new domain name that was unexpectedly receiving a high volume of internet traffic. Instead of paying Google for Think’s ads, I thought it might make more sense for Think to get paid for displaying Google’s.

Everything went according to plan until 11:00 A.M. on December 9, 2008. With a single click, a faceless Google employee decided that Think Computer Corporation’s membership in the AdSense program “posed a significant risk to our AdWords advertisers,” and the account was disabled with no warning. Trying to sign into the AdSense management site brought not the familiar user interface, with its limited account payment records and reports (including what Google currently owed Think, which amounted to approximately $721.00), but the following unhelpful statement, and nothing more:

Your AdSense account for this login is currently disabled. We recommend checking your email inboxes for any messages we may have sent you regarding your account status. Sometimes our messages can be caught by email filters, so please be sure to check the Bulk/Spam folders of your email accounts as well.

If your account was disabled for invalid click activity, please visit our Disabled Account FAQ for more information. Return to AdSense home.

Knowing only that I was somehow posing “a significant risk” to advertisers, I e-mailed Google to ask about exactly what had happened. An errant automated response told me that my records could not be found. Going back and using the on-line appeal form on the AdSense web site similarly yielded no result; not even a confirmation that the appeal had been received. In the appeal I offered to send Google hundreds of pages of log files to prove that no fraud had taken place, but no one replied.

More than once, I tried calling Google at its corporate offices in Mountain View. Invariably the person on the other end of the line sounded like they were approximately my age, and there’s a chance I might have even gone to college with some of them, but despite all of those similarities the difference in bureaucratic flexibility could not have been more vast.

While I was capable of authorizing any action on behalf of my company, Google’s overachieving receptionists were not even permitted to transfer my phone call to AdSense customer service. There was no AdSense customer service. Even if there had been, it would not have mattered much. I also couldn’t be transferred to any of the engineers who worked on AdSense. Or product managers. Or executives. It made no difference that I was also a paying AdWords customer.

Trying a more aggressive approach, I tried instead to be transferred to the legal department. That, too, was not an option. Despite the clear existence of the legal department, I was told again and again that I was not allowed to speak with anyone in it. For the time being, I gave up.

Two days after the account was disabled, on December 11, 2008, Google’s AdSense team posted a message on its blog introducing a new system called “AdSense for Domains.” Unlike normal AdSense (“for Content,” as it was then re-branded), AdSense for Domains was designed to be used by web sites that were effectively blank. When I had tried to sign up for it previously, given that my domain name needed exactly such a service, it had been “closed” – code for “available to a limited number of companies with large numbers of domain names.” Now, I was once again enraged since Google could have easily allowed me to switch over to their new service if they had merely waited two days.

Another flurry of phone calls to the AdSense employees who had written on the corporate blog got me nowhere. I left voicemails about my disabled account diligently, to no avail. I even called AdWords customer support, intentionally asking for the wrong department to see if a real human being could help. These efforts netted a relatively quick e-mail rejection of my appeal form, and fairly unbelievable recordings of telephone calls with Google employee Adam C.

When questioned, “Can I just ask in general why you guys have a support team for AdWords, but not AdSense?”, the knowledgeable Mr C. replied, “I do not know.” When asked, “Is there a project manager,” he replied, “There’s no one I’d be able to transfer you to.” I was able to get an e-mail address for the legal department, so I e-mailed legal@google.com–and never received a reply. In the meantime, I tried to figure out what to do with my web site since I couldn’t use AdSense anymore.

I found Sedo, a European company that had a contract with none other than–you guessed it–Google AdSense–to display advertisements on placeholder web sites. By signing up with Sedo, I could once again use AdSense, but with one small catch. Since Sedo was the middleman, my effective rate of payment per click was somewhere between 1/5,000th and 1/10,000th of what it had been previously. Despite all of its well-meaning claims about its Terms and Conditions, it appeared that Google was willing to pay for my web site traffic after all–so long as it wasn’t me receiving the money.

I’d already posted once on the AdSense Forums, where thousands of AdSense partners regularly asked questions and voiced gripes about the program, so I thought it wouldn’t hurt to post again, hoping someone from the Google legal team might see my concern. Again, there was no reply.

I looked up the profiles for the “AdSense Experts” who answered questions in their official roles as forum moderators. Each expert had a different crayon stick-figure picture, and (useless) information about their favorite food or town, but no contact information–not even an e-mail address. With undoubtedly hundreds of employees working on advertising alone, all of them completely unreachable except in heavily scripted contexts, Google’s amazing money machine was starting to look a bit more like the type of Potemkin Village the parents of the company’s founders had fled decades before.

I spoke with Adam C. of AdWords once more on the phone. After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers, Mr. C. responded by saying that such thinking did not apply to Google’s terms of service. Effectively, Google’s position was that it was above the law, and if not any law in particular, then at least the spirit of the law. Irked, I decided to find out if such a position was tenable.

On January 15, 2009, I walked over to the Santa Clara County courthouse in Palo Alto, which conveniently fell within the same county lines as Google’s home of Mountain View, and filed a civil small claims lawsuit for $721.00–the amount Google owed Think when it disabled the account–using form SC-100. For a total of $40.00 in court fees, I arranged for Google, Inc. to be served by certified mail. The hearing was scheduled for March 2, 2009.

Since lawyers are not permitted in small claims court, Google instead sent Stephanie Milani, a Litigation Paralegal. During the short last-ditch-resolution period before the hearings on the afternoon schedule began, Ms. Milani argued that I must have done something wrong to deserve my fate. When I asked her what, she didn’t know. The AdSense engineers had not told her.

“Google can terminate your account for any reason,” she told me.

“Not any reason,” I said. “Not because I have blue eyes. Or brown eyes.” After being told to quiet down by the courtroom guard, we decided that we had reached an impasse, exchanged documents, and went back into the court room.

Arguing before that day’s pro tempore judge, I pointed out that my company had done nothing wrong to deserve termination of the contract, that Google could not prove any wrongdoing, that Google’s fraud detection algorithm was imperfect by definition (since one cannot intuit moral intent through mathematical analysis), that advertisers must already agree to bear risk as part of the AdWords terms and conditions (clause 5), and that Google had gone to great lengths (including eliminating the ability to view account records) to make it difficult to dispute anything–all while owing Think money. In fact, terminating accounts for “posing significant risk” just when they started to earn significant amounts of money seemed like a great way for Google to cut accounting liabilities in a difficult economic climate. After my explanation, the judge had a question.

“What was the reason Google gave you for disabling your account?”

“Beyond, ‘posing a signficicant risk to advertisers,’ they didn’t give a reason.” I said. “I don’t know.”

Google’s Ms. Milani didn’t know either. She argued that advertisers had already been refunded my $721.00, even if they hadn’t asked for a refund. She claimed that Google could terminate accounts for any or no reason, and that I had agreed to such terms by signing up for AdSense in the first place. She even said that I’d admitted to violating the terms of service when I sent in my appeal form, because I had mentioned that my new domain name was only a placeholder site.

In fact, clause 6 of the AdSense for Content Terms and Conditions does not allow Google to terminate accounts for “no” reason–only “any” reason. Much to my amusement, the judge interrupted her to make a point that sounded familiar.

“But you couldn’t terminate my account because of the color of my eyes, could you? I have brown eyes. You couldn’t terminate my account because of that.”

Ms. Milani reiterated her previous arguments, but the judge didn’t buy them. “I don’t think I have the power here in Palo Alto small claims court to make you reinstate his account, but I think you owe this young man $721,” he said finally. “I think there might be money in Google’s treasury for that.”

In the end, printed on a baby blue sheet of paper by the clerk’s aging dot matrix printer, the judgment was actually entered for $761.00 total, due to the $40.00 court costs. I couldn’t help but to smile in front of the judge.

“But it’s not fair!” Google’s paralegal protested. “What if everyone whose account was canceled sued Google?”

It’s a valid question. Yet until Google changes its policies to become more transparent, which might also reassure skeptics that AdWords and AdSense, which have oddly limited reporting capabilities, aren’t just two sides of the same ponzi scheme (for why else would one want to terminate legitimate accounts with high monthly liabilities when they’re supposed to be making money for Google on each click?)–I will give this answer:

Maybe everyone whose account was canceled, should.

Aaron Greenspan is President & CEO of Think Computer Corporation and the author of Authoritas: One Student’s Harvard Admissions and the Founding of the Facebook Era. This article was authored and written by Mr. Aaron Greenspan the President and CEO of Think Computer Corporation.