Death Threats via a DDOS Attack

Hi all, Some of you may or may not be aware that for the last 10 days my blog, Whizzbangsblog.com, has been down due to a consistent DDOS attack. The reason for the attack was directly due to my articles on people that are committing fraud in the domain industry by pumping bad traffic through domains, purchasing parking accounts and stealing good domain owner’s identities. This behaviour is rampant and is costing us all millions of dollars.

Initially the fraudsters struck at my blog and then moved the DDOS to my company (which is OK BTW), to michaelgilmour.com and now finally back to whizzbangsblog.com. They have been communicating to me via the referral URL which in the last instance was the following:

173.245.53.77 – - [06/Sep/2011:00:13:51 +1000] “GET / HTTP/1.0″ 200 316 “http://lastwarning-shutdown-yourblog-or-die-withyourparklogic.com/” “Mozilla/5.0(compatible;MSIE 8.0;Windows NT 6.0;InfoPath.1;.NET CLR 3.0.04506.648;.NET CLR 2.0.50727)”

It’s the first time in my life I received such a threat and upon speaking with the police they indicated that I should take it seriously. I have now contacted CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) in both the USA and Australia, Victorian Police, Federal Police, FBI (still trying to find the right person) and I have now been told by the police to contact the Secret Service Cyber-crime area in Washington.

In one of my blogs I posted an email that had been circulating that related to purchasing parking accounts and the response was incredible. Many domainers didn’t know about this activity and why it was bad for their reputation and the industry they operate in. My guess is that many of them stopped selling accounts and this has caused the fraudsters some problems…..hence the DDOS.

Our industry is under threat from unscrupulous scumbags and I have no intention in bowing down to threats like this. I do not negotiate with terrorists that hijack an industry that I love and steal from friends that I greatly respect. I would ask this of my fellow domainers. Please support me in exposing these people and feel free to publish this article – get it off my server ASAP. It will mean a brave stand and I will not feel any ill will for those of you who do not feel you are able to fight this fight.

I will keep posting here as long as possible in the meantime you can see me updating facebook.

Warmest Regards,

Michael Gilmour

Guest Article, written Seot 8, 2011

Good News! FTC Launches Investigation of Google

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

The Federal Trade Commission is preparing to serve Google with legal subpoenas, starting a major antitrust investigation of Google.

The U.S. FTC will be investigating if Google has abused its dominating market position to suppress competition. The new FTC investigation of Google is likely setting off serious alarm bells at Google due to its wide-ranging potential and scope.

This new investigation of Google involves their two key revenue areas of search and advertising. Other internet players have been complaining for years how Google’s search algorithm appears to be designed to drive web-surfers more to Google’s own services than their websites.

A major new concern for Google is that it’s widely alleged Google’s dominating position in online-advertising gives them far too much control over a businesses success or its failure. We wish the FTC the best of luck and succcess in its well deserved Google investigation which is so extremely negative to consumers and other online businesses.

Mo doubt about it, Google has become far too big and powerful. Would not be too surprised to see Google’s brand in your local supermarket soon on food products like Tomato Ketchup!

You can file a consumer complaint against Google by clicking-on the picture below:

Example of a Cleverly Disguised Hijacking Attempt

Watch out for all the very well done cleverly disguised attempts to get your login name and password to various websites such as PayPal, Amazon.com, your Bank accounts, Facebook, plus email providers such as Gmail, and other sites.

For example, reprinted below is one of the more clever ones making the rounds today, which I am sure could work very well for the hijacker of your account:

“Gmail technology team has recently launched Google web software to protect and secure all Gmail Accounts. This system also enhanced efficient networking and fully supported browser. You need to upgrade to a fully supported browser by filling out the details below for validation purpose and to confirm your details on the new webmaster Central system.

ID:
PASSWORD:
LOCATION:

Note: Your account will be disabled permanently if you failed to provide the details required above within 72hours. Gmail will not be held responsible for your negligence. The Google web Service.”

Website Links/Ads Don’t Give Court Jurisdiction

A recent decision by United States District Court in Missouri clarified an important distinction regarding jurisdictional issues within internet law about intrenet law jurisdictional issues. The Federal Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, a Costa Rican software company, finding no personal jurisdiction.

The Federal Court decision hinged upon the nature of the software company’s hyperlinks on its website. The District Court held the defendants website, which was passive, but linked to inter-active sites, did not provide the requisite minimum contacts to satisfy personal jurisdiction because the company did not control the target sites.

In the USA, for a court to enter a legally valid judgment against a person, the court must first have personal jurisdiction over that person. An out of state defendant cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction if that defendant has not had a sufficient amount of “minimum contact” with the state where jurisdiction is claimed. A defendant must purposely “reach in,” to that state in order to be sued there legally.

In the context of the internet, the prevailing trend by courts is to rule that jurisdiction is proper when the defendant maintains a website that is interactive in nature, and/or a site which gives users an opportunity to conduct business or otherwise provide input to the website.

This means that a person operating an interactive website opens themselves to jurisdiction in any state from which the website receives visitors. Whereas maintaining a passive website, one which merely displays information for the user to peruse, i.e. a blog, is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts. However, the question in this case turned on what the determination should be when a passive website displays links/advertisements for interactive sites?

The court in this case answered that question by ruling that the third-party target sites were irrelevant to the minimum contacts analysis. Jurisdiction should turn on the company’s purposeful activities, rather than uncertain and immeasurable ties between the company and the third party’s online contacts with the state.

The court stated, “The activity of those hyperlinked websites supports jurisdiction only if defendants maintain some responsibility for or control over the activities and contents of the third-party sites.” While the legal debate surrounding the interactivity test continues, with many detractors arguing it’s web 1.0 specific, this ruling should be encouraging for many website operators, and especially encouraging to Sedo users.

If the district court would have ruled the other way, it would have meant domain name owners who use ppc ads and parking pages could be subject to almost universal personal jurisdiction depending on the interactive nature of the linked web site. Article courtesy of Sedo.com by ~Ryan Sadler, Legal Team.

Any comments you have about Internet intellectual property.com and website advertising would be appreciated, which feedback we are looking for to expand our website. You can visit our IP Law site by going to Internet Intellectual Property now, or clicking-on the picture below. Thank you.

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.