Sales: 0800 321 3812
Support: 0845 680 3812

Posts Tagged ‘ICANN’

ICANN closes down three US domain name registrars

by: Chris Hudson
12 August, 2009

ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has revoked the accreditation of 3 domain name registrars for various offences.

South American Domains, Simply Named and Tahoe Domains are all based in the US and host 296, 298 and 231 top level domains respectively.

Under ICANN rules, the domains controlled by the three domain name registrars will be available for transfer to reliable third-party domain name registrars such as ourselves, Intrahost Ltd.

As with all things in business, this serves as a warning to do some due diligence on firms with which you have dealings on the Internet.

Don’t be fooled by size either, last month Network Solutions, one of the biggest names in domain names and hosting admitted its ecommerce servers had been hacked. Only last year EstDomains was shutdown, by ICANN revoking their accreditation, and 281,000 domain names had to find new registrars.

Trademark cybersquatters to be locked out?

by: Chris Hudson
28 July, 2009

ICANN is considering creating a central database of trademark registrants to help them fend-off future domain name cybersquatters.

The action is being prompted by the likelihood that ICANN will authorise up to 100 new domain name-suffixes within the next 12 months (e.g. .hotel .london etc).

Although trademark holders have always been given preference when a new TLD has been created - in order to avoid mass cybersquatting on the new top-level domain - the prospect of hundreds of new TLDs created in so short a period of time has worried trademark holders over the cost and time required to protect their trademarks. Each of the TLDs will have their own rules and regulations which will escalate the administrative time and cost beyond the mere registration process.

The database will attempt to help the holders by automatically preventing the registration of a trademark by anyone other than the trademark holder. This alleviates the need for the trademark holder to register in each new TLD to protect their rights.

It will not prevent someone else registering the trademark entirely, it will merely make them jump through a few hoops - for example, showing a legitimate use for the name. If RedRose is the trademark of a restaurant in Leeds, this would not stop a “RedRose.london” registration by a London-based hotel.

There is also the problem of conflicting trademarks to be solved: what happens when US and German trademark holders for their respective countries try to both register, for example, “Imperial.hotel“? Who will have precedence?