Sedo Transactions Total $1M; 52% Are BIN & Open.TV Sells For $25K

Over the past week, 506 transactions took place on Sedo’s marketplace and via SedoMLS, totaling $1m. 52% of total sales were the result of Buy Now listings.

Highlights of public sales are:

· Top .coms: gca.com at 90,000 USD
· Top ccTLD: open.tv at 25,000 EUR
· Top “other” TLD: matrix.org at 7,999 USD

The top sales of the week were already reported by blogs in the industry GCA.com for $90K and Logics.com at $50K

So we will highlight Open.TV which sold for $25K.

Here are the reportable sales:

 

 

Domain name Price Currency
.COMs
gca.com 90,000 USD
logics.com 50,000 USD
pdn.com 27,900 USD
vivamedia.com 10,000 GBP
ghealth.com 10,000 USD
dochub.com 9,985 USD
thefinalwhistle.com 7,500 USD
socialcon.com 7,000 USD
clipsondemand.com 6,988 USD
klara.com 6,000 EUR
baitna.com 5,800 USD
localvibe.com 5,500 USD
inclass.com 5,500 USD
umbf.com 5,000 USD
tacovilla.com 5,000 USD
seocial.com 5,000 USD
dimension4.com 4,999 EUR
dialoq.com 4,600 USD
mymodo.com 4,500 USD
gymnasiet.com 4,000 USD
aistone.com 4,000 USD
bbvm.com 4,000 USD
itlworld.com 3,750 EUR
sudameris.com 3,333 GBP
wjax.com 3,140 USD
whitefield.com 3,125 USD
ecom360.com 3,000 USD
expandhorizons.com 3,000 USD
qql.com 2,999 EUR
puzzlemats.com 2,900 USD
cfss.com 2,800 USD
sntr.com 2,600 USD
yestv.com 2,500 USD
artelocal.com 2,500 USD
impressioncymbals.com 2,295 USD
robotpark.com 2,200 USD
synolo.com 2,000 USD
commersations.com 2,000 USD
playadenbossa.com 2,000 USD
yougun.com 2,000 USD
便利网.com 2,000 USD
yourbestlook.com 1,995 USD
diib.com 1,980 USD
thefunction.com 1,877 USD
luxsy.com 1,816 USD
gestion-locative.com 1,800 EUR
concretesaw.com 1,800 USD
citibox.com 1,750 USD
artemid.com 1,739 EUR
contabilidadelectronica.com 1,725 USD
antlife.com 1,650 USD
maxfinder.com 1,600 EUR
businesstitan.com 1,500 USD
immortalitynow.com 1,500 USD
brickx.com 1,500 EUR
2cut.com 1,500 USD
singleid.com 1,500 USD
sojn.com 1,499 USD
terhab.com 1,495 USD
lanierislands.com 1,489 USD
consolair.com 1,450 USD
poshpretzels.com 1,450 USD
onibaba.com 1,400 USD
paybull.com 1,400 USD
streamcool.com 1,395 USD
247updates.com 1,350 USD
hugook.com 1,295 USD
canterburyhealth.com 1,295 USD
rezze.com 1,250 USD
reciclamos.com 1,250 USD
clipondemand.com 1,200 USD
sexshop-online.com 1,200 EUR
bubblestore.com 1,195 USD
livering.com 1,050 EUR
winewalk.com 1,000 USD
ajura.com 1,000 EUR
gradbox.com 1,000 EUR
the-book.com 1,000 USD
dinnermenu.com 1,000 USD
aviclub.com 1,000 USD
cstoreproducts.com 1,000 USD
livehq.com 1,000 USD
keynation.com 1,000 USD
netoloji.com 999 USD
stemrx.com 995 USD
lovetaste.com 899 GBP
airrefund.com 899 EUR
mydezign.com 877 USD
wegbegleiter.com 850 EUR
fernbus24.com 800 EUR
phuketlet.com 800 USD
kjjt.com 800 USD
msibenefits.com 799 USD
seafoodtrade.com 799 USD
mobielinternet.com 750 EUR
abundantly.com 750 USD
natz.com 749 USD
efro.com 710 USD
imoveiscamposdojordao.com 700 EUR
ccTLD
open.tv 25,000 USD
online-autoboerse.de 15,000 EUR
weblink.com.br 7,000 USD
football.de 6,100 EUR
euroshopping.ch 5,000 EUR
thebook.us 5,000 USD
cx.cc 4,900 USD
onecard.no 4,740 EUR
mr.cc 3,100 USD
htl.li 2,651 EUR
eathealthy.de 2,200 EUR
e-schuhe.de 2,100 EUR
qbo.eu 1,999 EUR
babyalarm.de 1,750 EUR
eureimport.de 1,700 EUR
teaser.co 1,625 USD
nail.tv 1,500 USD
tutu.tv 1,500 USD
fitnessworld.de 1,500 EUR
investor-news.de 1,500 EUR
ross.ch 1,480 EUR
webanalytics.co.za 1,415 USD
seeconnect.de 1,350 EUR
kamagraonline.de 1,200 EUR
flashscore.nl 1,000 EUR
viking.us 1,000 USD
golfmotion.nl 1,000 EUR
ebx.co 900 USD
telecity.com.au 900 EUR
vbank.co.uk 854 USD
artofindia.in 850 USD
shizzle.co.uk 850 GBP
hurenopmaat.nl 847 EUR
calculate.co.nz 820 USD
mathildas.co.za 800 USD
yopa.co.uk 800 GBP
sonderkuendigungsrecht.de 800 EUR
aei.es 775 EUR
kochrezepte-app.de 758 EUR
letselschadeclaim.nl 750 EUR
oneplus.eu 749 EUR
free-spins.eu 720 USD
terrassenwelt.de 719 EUR
qbo.at 708 EUR
alkoholsucht.eu 700 EUR
OTHER
matrix.org 7,999 USD
betamerica.net 5,750 USD
sistercities.org 4,800 USD
internettutorials.net 4,050 USD
tesla.info 3,900 USD
opex.org 3,288 USD
farming.org 2,550 GBP
burgers.net 2,500 EUR
vitaplus.net 1,500 USD
champions.club 1,500 USD
campagnolo.biz 1,400 EUR
riversoftware.net 1,000 USD
buylist.net 980 USD
buybitcoins.info 950 USD
geru.net 900 USD
zonneschermen.net 800 EUR
stockist.info 800 USD
zpi.org 700 USD

You Want To illegally download content in the UK ? You will get some letters but no penalty

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) must be wondering what the heck is going on across the pond in the UK. After years of trying to find the right solution to dealing with piracy, they are going to send citizens letters that are the equivalent to telling your dog who just pooped on the carpet, Bad Dog !

If someone is a consistent downloader of pirated content, they will receive up to four letters telling them that what they are doing is illegal, and point them to alternatives that are paid options.

Here is where the MPAA and RIAA must be going nuts, if the user decides to ignore all the letters, there will be nothing done, no sanctions, nothing.

The Telegraph covered the story here:

People in the UK who persistently download and share pirated content online will start receiving warning letters from their internet service providers (ISPs) from next year.

Internet account holders whose connections are believed to have been used to infringe copyright could reportedly receive up to four warning letters (via email) per year. However, there will be no sanctions for people who decide to ignore the letters.

The aim of the letters is to boost consumer awareness of the wide array of legitimate online content services and help reduce online copyright infringement, according to a group of representatives from the UK’s creative industries and major ISPs.

The warning system, known as Creative Content UK (formerly VCAP), is the result of years of negotiations between ISPs and industry bodies representing the UK’s creative industries, including the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the BPI (British Recorded Music Industry).

Read the full article here

If one were to put on their conspiracy hat, could this be a Trojan horse ? You start sending all these letters, you have the names then of the people who ignored them. The content creators could go back to a judge or regulator and say,”We have proof that Bob Smithington has been pirating our content, he got letters and ignored them purposely because he thought there was no penalty. Aha, we tricked you this was all a set up and now we have proof that you are not misguided or did not know it was illegal. We have proven to regulators that when there is no penalty, piracy will go unchecked and run rampant.”

Flippa giving away a special link to redeem 1 FREE Domain listing!

flippa

Flippa has certainly ramped up its domain only auctions since Kevin Fink came on board and jump started things there.

There is a special promo running good for one week, that he just released,

From now through month’s end, when you list a domain on Flippa, you’ll be given a special link to redeem 1 FREE Domain listing!

Here’s how it works: go and sell any domain name. When you pay for your first listing, you’ll receive — in your listing confirmation email — a special link. Click on that, and you’re taken to a spot where you’ll receive your 9 credits — enough to apply towards an upgrade, or list / relist another domain name for FREE.

The only restrictions are that this is limited to one per account, and will expire August 1st at 12:01am, PST. Oh, and…domain listings only — you cannot apply this to websites or apps.

So if you are thinking of running an auction, now is the time.

An Example of Why People Still CyberSquat

Why do people still cybersquat ? That was a question posed a couple of weeks back on Namepros, and while I am not advocating it any way, I am going to give an example of how it still pays off in 2014.

PluralSight.in sold on Wednesday for $16,000. The domain was registered in July of 2013, by a gentleman in China who just listed himself as Jeff. No last name, just Jeff. Well just Jeff regged pluralsight.in which has several live trademarks, some before the name was registered and others registered after the domain registration.

The company Plural Sight was written up on Tech Crunch back in 2012 when it announced its first funding from the outside world. The company took in $27.5 million.

From the article:

Pluralsight, an online training resource targeting professional developers, is today announcing its first outside funding, courtesy of a $27.5 million investment from Insight Venture Partners. The additional capital will help Pluralsight fund the expansion of its course library and will be used for hiring.

Salt Lake City-based Pluralsight was founded back in 2004 by Aaron Skonnard (CEO), Fritz Onion (Editor in Chief), Keith Brown (CTO), and Bill Williams (who’s no longer there). The company got its start as a classroom training outfit that once involved sending out an instructor to a business or having employees attend a training event. Three years in, it shifted the business model from in-person training to online learning.

Read the full story here

The company has been active on the acquisition front as well, they purchased Digital Tutors for $45 million back in April.

So did being in China and just having the name Jeff help the .in registrant ? Perhaps the company figured it was simpler to purchase the name on a trusted exchange like Sedo, than to file a UDRP and have to deal with a registrant in another part of the world.

$16,000 is a significant amount of money for a handreg in the .in extension, only two .in extensions have sold for that much or better in 2013 or 2014 (Domains.in $40,000, Yum.in $16,000).

So while there is great risk in regging names like this and it is not recommended by anyone here, it sometimes pays off as the registrant gets what they were hoping for, the perfect buyer that has a lot of cash, who will just buy the domain.

3rd Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of The Day: Sin Spirits LLC Guilty On SinVodka.com

Sin Spirits LLC represented by George M. Dipp, Texas has been found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) making it the third RDNH ruling of the day which must be a record, on the domain name SinVodka.com

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 9, 1997 as evidenced by the Whois records.

Complainant makes four attempts to negotiate a purchase of the disputed domain name at Domainsales and Sedo.com on May 6, May 10, May 12 and May 27, 2014, but does not agree to the price offer and thus fails to negotiate the sale of the domain of interest.

On May 8, 2014 Complainant registered the legal entity Sin Spirits LLC with the Texas Secretary of State.

On May 14, 2014, namely more than 6 years after the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent and shortly after the negotiations for sales of the disputed domain name broke off, Complainant filed a trademark application (Serial No. 86280743) to the USPTO seeking for registration of the “SIN SPIRITS” trademark in class 33, particularly for distilled spirits, spirits, spirits and liquors, vodka.

This is not only because the mere filing of a trademark application which has not been examined (namely no issuance took place) does not confer trademark rights under the Policy (See ECG European City Guide v. Woodell, FA 183897 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 14, 2003), and thus is not sufficient to establish rights in a trademark necessary to satisfy Policy 4 (a)(i), but also because no evidence could be submitted by Complainant showing that it might hold any common law rights based on prior use of the “SIN SPIRITS” trademark as the USPTO records clearly show that the application was filed based on an intent to use. Moreover, nowhere in his submission does Complainant allege that he has been using the mark or might have been known under this mark.

Thus, taking into account that registration of the disputed domain by Respondent, significantly pre-dating the trademark filing by Complainant, cannot be treated as the registration in bad faith, and further research into the second element of the Policy also makes no sense as Complainant, having not established the first element of the Policy, has no ground to allege that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, the Panel decides to decline further analysis of the other two elements of the Policy.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Having found that

- the registration of the domain significantly pre-dates trademark filing by Complainant (which, as mentioned before, does not confer trademark rights to Complainant) and of which Complainant was well aware when he brought the present complaint, and

- the trademark filing was made, and the present complaint was filed following unsuccessful attempts to negotiate sales of the disputed domain,

The Panel has come to a conclusion that the complaint was filed in bad faith, abusing the Policy in order to acquire the domain name, and thus such activities of Complainant qualify for an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking in the meaning of Rule 1 of the UDRP Policy.