Arena Football’s OrlandoPredators.com Gets Lost In Sale & Now Points To Sexual Offenders

The arena Football team the Orlando Predators was recently sold and the one thing that seem to have gotten lost in the sale is its domain name.

According to a story in the orlandosentinel.com, the domain which served as the previous official site of the team OrlandoPredators.com now redirects visitors to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s archive of sexual offenders and predators.

It seems the domain name was not in the name of the team or the league but in the name of the previous managing partner of the team David Pearsall.

The team just found out about the issue the day before the new owner of the team named a new President Jared Saft.

“Our initial reaction was to reach out to the league,” Saft said. “We’re really disappointed. He’s potentially harming fans and children who are trying to get information on the team.

“When you register a domain, you represent that you’re not infringing on a trademark. Well, he’s infringing on a trademark.”

The league agrees. “It’s unfortunate that previous ownership did not handle this differently, but the appropriate legal action has been commenced and we are confident that the Predators’ brand will remain as strong as ever,” AFL Commissioner Jerry B. Kurz said in a statement to the Orlando Sentinel.

Saft said a complaint has been filed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit organization responsible for regulating domain names, among other things.

“We think that domain belongs with the team; It’s pretty clear,” Saft said. “The current owner will face the justice of misinforming the public.”

While the team works to regain control of its former domain, it launched a new website called MyOrlandoPredators.com.

“A fully-functional website, on whatever domain name the team ends up with, should be up and running within the next 30 to 45 days.”

After Losing MyArt.com in UDRP, Fed Court Awards Owner Domain + Damages + Attorney Fees

According to a post on the site of the law firm Lewis & Lin, the domain owner of MyArt.com who lost a UDRP in April, filed a lawsuit in federal court and not only stopped the transfer of the domain name but got an award of statutory damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

We wrote about the UDRP back in April of this year and noted it was the 2nd UDRP filed by the same complaint on the same domain.

David Lin, Esq. writing on his firm’s site in a post entitled: “Reverse Domain Hijacking Defendants Consent to Judgement” says:

Reverse Domain Hijacking Defendants Consent to Judgement – See more at: http://www.ilawco.com/blog/reverse-domain-hijacking-myart.html#sthash.KXCiEDeU.dpuf

“After losing a UDRP proceeding by default, the owners of MyArt.com retained Lewis & Lin to stop the transfer of the domain name under ICANN rules.

Lewis & Lin immediately filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against My Art SAS, a French company engaged in the sale of artwork, and its principal shareholder. Our complaint sought relief for reverse domain name hijacking under the Lanham Act, as well as related state unfair competition claims.

Barely a month after being served with the complaint, defendants issued an offer of judgment consenting to all of the declaratory relief that we sought on behalf of our client.

Defendants also offered a monetary judgment in an amount that included statutory damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The offer of judgment was accepted and judgment was entered in favor of our client.

This case illustrates that a UDRP loss has absolutely no bearing on subsequent litigation between the same parties and the same domain name. A UDRP panel’s decision, which is not based on U.S. trademark law, will be entitled to no deference, and will have no preclusive effect in a federal court case. For domain name registrants who fall victim to the efforts of reverse domain hijackers attempting to seize a domain in the UDRP process, there is hope to recover a hijacked domain.

Simply by filing a federal lawsuit and requiring the attempted hijacker to defend their actions, a domain name registrant can keep what’s rightfully theirs. For more information on reverse domain hijacking and the UDRP, contact David Lin at Lewis & Lin LLC.”

We are thrilled that a domain name owner stood up for his rights, took the horrible UDRP decision to court and not only quickly got the transfer of the domain name stopped but also got damages, attorney fees and costs.

Big congrats to

 

Google Wants Your Opinion On How They Should Implement “Right To Be Forgotten”

Google’s Advisory Council is asking the public on how they should implement the EU court required “Right to be Forgotten”

The question Google is asking is:

“How should one person’s right to be forgotten be balanced with the public’s right to know?”

“”A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union found that European law gives people the right to ask search engines like Google to remove results for queries that include their name.

Since then, we’ve received removal requests on all sorts of content: serious criminal records, embarrassing photos, instances of online bullying and name-calling, decades-old allegations, negative press stories, and more.

For each of these requests, we’re required to weigh, on a case-by-case basis, an individual’s right to be forgotten with the public’s right to know.

We want to strike this balance right. This obligation is a new and difficult challenge for us, and we’re seeking advice on the principles Google ought to apply when making decisions on individual cases. That’s why we’re convening a council of experts.

We’re just getting started, but during this process we also want to hear your input, too — this is all about your rights online, and the Internet provides an incredible forum for discussion and debate.””

If you want to share your opinion with Google on this very important issue please click here

 

USPTO Grants Two Patents On DNS including “Systems & Methods for Providing DNS Services”

Two Patents were granted yesterday by the USPTO on DNS

Nominum, Inc received a patent on Systems and methods for providing DNS services

A system for providing a Domain Name System (DNS) service may include providing an agent for installation on a subscriber device. The subscriber device may be connected to the DNS service via an entry point device. The system includes receiving, from the agent, agent data indicative of a subscriber identifier and a unique identifier associated with the entry point device. The system may then determine, based on the agent data, a current Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the entry point device and associate the unique identifier with the subscriber identifier. The system may then dynamically map the subscriber identifier to the current IP address and provide DNS service to the subscriber device based on the current IP address.
July 01, 2014
#8769060

The second Patent granted yesterday to Limelight Networks, Inc.; is for a
Domain name service resolver

A domain name service (DNS) resolver returns Internet protocol (IP) addresses.

A connection with an Internet application or device receives domain name resolution requests that originate outside of the Internet.

A direct DNS resolver identifies IP addresses without referring to the Internet or using other DNS resolvers. An address store includes a predetermined list of domain names and corresponding IP addresses specified from a point remote to the DNS resolver.

The DNS resolver processes the domain name resolutions for the predetermined list of domain names differently than domain name resolutions for other domain names not on the predetermined list of domain names. At least part of the predetermined list is pushed to a destination upon receiving a resolution request for a domain name in the predetermined list of domain names, the request being of a type other than an authoritative resolution request to be performed by the direct DNS resolver.

July 01, 2014
#8769118

Microsoft Seizes 22 Domains Of No­-IP Based Off Of SubDomain Usage & Millions Of Uses Effected

No­-IP a DNS service company told its customers on its company blog yesterday, that Microsoft has gotten a federal court order seizing 22 of its domain names based on the activity of users on some of the subdomains.

According to arstechnica.com, “Millions of legitimate servers that rely on dynamic domain name services from No-IP.com suffered outages on Monday after Microsoft seized 22 domain names it said were being abused in malware-related crimes against Windows users.”

“In a complaint Microsoft filed under seal on June 19, Microsoft attorneys said No-IP is “functioning as a major hub for 245 different types of malware circulating on the Internet.” The document said abuse of the service has been the subject of recent blog posts by both OpenDNS and Cisco Systems.

“Although Defendant Vitalwerks is on notice and should be aware that its services are heavily abused, it has failed to take sufficient steps to correct, remedy, or prevent the abuse and to keep its domains free from malicious activity,” the attorneys wrote. In addition to naming No-IP, the complaint also charged two men who allegedly used No-IP to work with Bladabindi and Jenxcus control servers. More documents filed in the case are available here.”

According to krebsonsecurity.com, Microsoft  to go after 2,000 or so bad sites, has taken down four million.

Here is the blog post from No-IP:

“We want to update all our loyal customers about the service outages that many of you are experiencing today. It is not a technical issue.”

“This morning, Microsoft served a federal court order and seized 22 of our most commonly used domains because they claimed that some of the subdomains have been abused by creators of malware. ”

“We were very surprised by this. We have a long history of proactively working with other companies when cases of alleged malicious activity have been reported to us.”

“Unfortunately, Microsoft never contacted us or asked us to block any subdomains, even though we have an open line of communication with Microsoft corporate executives.”

“We have been in contact with Microsoft today.”

“They claim that their intent is to only filter out the known bad hostnames in each seized domain, while continuing to allow the good hostnames to resolve. ”

“However, this is not happening.”

“Apparently, the Microsoft infrastructure is not able to handle the billions of queries from our customers. Millions of innocent users are experiencing outages to their services because of Microsoft’s attempt to remediate hostnames associated with a few bad actors.”

“Had Microsoft contacted us, we could and would have taken immediate action.”

“Microsoft now claims that it just wants to get us to clean up our act, but its draconian actions have affected millions of innocent Internet users.”