Feeds

Virgin boss victorious in .xxx Branson pickle

Cyber-squatter owns diddly-squat in domain ruling

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

Sir Richard Branson has wrestled a .xxx domain off a cybersquatter in a challenge over richardbranson.xxx.

The Virgin Group founder discovered last week that his Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation was successful.

The WIPO panelist handling the case found that the cybersquatter, Australian Sean Truman, lacked rights to the address and had registered it in bad faith.

Truman, who bought the domain four days after the .xxx registry went live last December, said in his defence that he snapped up the address as a "souvenir". He also claimed that Branson had "ample opportunity to register the name if he believed that his rights may be under threat by another person", according to the decision.

But "you snooze, you lose" is not a defence to cybersquatting under the UDRP's rules, and the panelist found in favour of Branson. The domain will now be transferred to Virgin.

But because Virgin is not a porn company, and therefore does not qualify to register .xxx domains, richardbranson.xxx will likely be set as a "non-resolver", meaning it will not work when you type it in your browser address bars.

It is the second UDRP case to have been decided since .xxx first started selling domains last year. The first saw the domain heb.xxx transferred to a Texas-based grocery chain. Other disputed addresses include foxstudios.xxx and kayjewelers.xxx, according to UDRP records. There have been 13 cases filed since 29 December.

Uniquely, the .xxx space has a second way of resolving cybersquatting disputes that is much faster, more secretive, and turning out to be just as popular as the standard UDRP.

This Rapid Evaluation Service, which can take down an obviously cybersquatted domain in as little as two days, has been invoked 15 times so far, according to the National Arbitration Forum, which handles the cases. NAF has taken down 12 .xxx cybersquats since December, according to recently released statistics. Each case took on average two days for a preliminary decision.

Unlike UDRP, which transfers the domain to the aggrieved party, domains seized under the $1,300 RES are turned off permanently, so the winner does not have to pay annual recurring fees.

But RES decisions are not published, so it's not clear which domains were cybersquatted or what rationale the NAF panelists used to suspend the domains. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Sea-Me-We 5 construction starts
New sub cable to go live 2016
Vodafone to buy 140 Phones 4u stores from stricken retailer
887 jobs 'preserved' in the process, says administrator PwC
BT claims almost-gigabit connections over COPPER WIRE
Just need to bring the fibre box within 19m ...
EE coughs to BROKEN data usage metrics BLUNDER that short-changes customers
Carrier apologises for 'inflated' measurements cockup
Comcast: Help, help, FCC. Netflix and pals are EXTORTIONISTS
The others guys are being mean so therefore ... monopoly all good, yeah?
Surprise: if you work from home you need the Internet
Buffer-rage sends Aussies out to experience road rage
EE buys 58 Phones 4u stores for £2.5m after picking over carcass
Operator says it will safeguard 359 jobs, plans lick of paint
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.