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: at 90,000 USD
· Top ccTLD: at 25,000 EUR
· Top “other” TLD: at 7,999 USD

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

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

Here are the reportable sales:



Domain name Price Currency
.COMs 90,000 USD 50,000 USD 27,900 USD 10,000 GBP 10,000 USD 9,985 USD 7,500 USD 7,000 USD 6,988 USD 6,000 EUR 5,800 USD 5,500 USD 5,500 USD 5,000 USD 5,000 USD 5,000 USD 4,999 EUR 4,600 USD 4,500 USD 4,000 USD 4,000 USD 4,000 USD 3,750 EUR 3,333 GBP 3,140 USD 3,125 USD 3,000 USD 3,000 USD 2,999 EUR 2,900 USD 2,800 USD 2,600 USD 2,500 USD 2,500 USD 2,295 USD 2,200 USD 2,000 USD 2,000 USD 2,000 USD 2,000 USD
便利网.com 2,000 USD 1,995 USD 1,980 USD 1,877 USD 1,816 USD 1,800 EUR 1,800 USD 1,750 USD 1,739 EUR 1,725 USD 1,650 USD 1,600 EUR 1,500 USD 1,500 USD 1,500 EUR 1,500 USD 1,500 USD 1,499 USD 1,495 USD 1,489 USD 1,450 USD 1,450 USD 1,400 USD 1,400 USD 1,395 USD 1,350 USD 1,295 USD 1,295 USD 1,250 USD 1,250 USD 1,200 USD 1,200 EUR 1,195 USD 1,050 EUR 1,000 USD 1,000 EUR 1,000 EUR 1,000 USD 1,000 USD 1,000 USD 1,000 USD 1,000 USD 1,000 USD 999 USD 995 USD 899 GBP 899 EUR 877 USD 850 EUR 800 EUR 800 USD 800 USD 799 USD 799 USD 750 EUR 750 USD 749 USD 710 USD 700 EUR
ccTLD 25,000 USD 15,000 EUR 7,000 USD 6,100 EUR 5,000 EUR 5,000 USD 4,900 USD 4,740 EUR 3,100 USD 2,651 EUR 2,200 EUR 2,100 EUR 1,999 EUR 1,750 EUR 1,700 EUR 1,625 USD 1,500 USD 1,500 USD 1,500 EUR 1,500 EUR 1,480 EUR 1,415 USD 1,350 EUR 1,200 EUR 1,000 EUR 1,000 USD 1,000 EUR 900 USD 900 EUR 854 USD 850 USD 850 GBP 847 EUR 820 USD 800 USD 800 GBP 800 EUR 775 EUR 758 EUR 750 EUR 749 EUR 720 USD 719 EUR 708 EUR 700 EUR
OTHER 7,999 USD 5,750 USD 4,800 USD 4,050 USD 3,900 USD 3,288 USD 2,550 GBP 2,500 EUR 1,500 USD 1,500 USD 1,400 EUR 1,000 USD 980 USD 950 USD 900 USD 800 EUR 800 USD 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 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. 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 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 ( $40,000, $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

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

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 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.