A few years back my attention was drawn to the domain name registration patterns of a Toronto based company called Globe Media International Corporation. According to a number of sources including this Industry Canada webpage the company was established in 2003 listing Stefano Venneri of Toronto as its president. The business of Globe Media International Corporation is described as

“providing Internet based advertising solutions.” and names the company as a "leader" in the field. 

The company claims to have established Canada’s first multi medium advertising system and that it enjoys trademark rights in several of the domain names it has registered. Strangely, the company does not appear to have a corporate website which details the services they offer. 

What I find even more interesting about Globe Media International is that since its incorporation in 2003 the company has been engaged in what can only be described as a disturbingly obvious pattern of registering domain names which correspond to famous trademarks. To illustrate, here are a few of the domain names they have registered:

Ducati.ca
Labatts.ca
Mentos.ca
Zantac.ca
Chaps.ca
Isuzu.ca
Kmart.ca
Longines.ca
Smirnoff.ca
Versace.ca
Lotto649.ca
Fendi.ca
Movado.ca

Having been in the domain business for a decade I am well aware of the fact that there is nothing inherently illegal in the mere act of registering a domain name. Determinations of “bad faith” and trademark “infringement” as they apply to domain names can only be reached after a diligent review of the facts and circumstances surrounding how the domain names at issue are used and neither should be assumed as a sole result of their registration. Having said that, when I saw the names being registered by Globe Media I knew immediately that this company was traveling the wrong way down a one way street! It seemed obvious to me at least, that it was only going to be a matter of time until one of the above noted companies called upon Globe Media to account for their domain name registration choices. I saw this as a when not if kind of proposition. 

Any self respecting domain name professional will tell you that there is absolutely no good reason to register these names unless you are the trademark holder. Their upside is so minimal that it is almost nonexistent, and their downside is absolutely humongous. They are virtually worthless in the sense that they are difficult if not impossible to monetize without infringing on the marks associated with them and the time and effort required to make that happen would likely not worth the revenue they would generate. Because of the incredibly famous nature of the brands involved and the strength of the marks associated with them these domain names can be wrought with liability for anyone silly enough to try and employ them in a pay-per-click advertising or other domain parking program which trades off of their notoriety or good will.

So what exactly was slash is Globe Media’s end game and how do they hope to recover their investment in these names?

In my estimation there are only two strategies one can employ when investing in trademark protected domain names, neither of which is particularly viable. You can throw caution to the wind and monetize them in a way which infringes on the associated trademark, or you can attempt to sell the domain to the trademark holder who in all likelihood is probably the only other party in the world that has any keen interest in the domain name. I mean who wants to buy potential legal problems?

In my opinion Globe Media’s goal all along was to sell these names back to their respective trademark holders. The reason I say this, is that to their credit I suppose, Globe Media appears to have taken deliberate measures in an attempt to avoid or mitigate any potential claims of trademark infringement by setting up landing pages which offer vanity email services at certain of the above noted addresses as opposed to setting up ad laden pay per click pages. This was done to insure that surfers landing on these pages would not be exposed or redirected to competitive products or services and as such by definition the domain names could not be infringing on anyones rights. 

While it is true that under certain circumstances the offering of vanity email addresses may well be construed as a "legitimate use", I simply can not imagine how a company that rents email addresses for $250 a year with only 250 MB of space could have even the slightest chance of being viable especially since companies like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others offer their users many times that amount of space for free; but this is the bed that Globe Media has made for themselves. 

When Johnson & Johnson, the producers of Zantac and the owners the trademark rights associated with it contacted Globe Media about their registration of the domain name Zantac.ca, Globe Media offered to sell Johnson & Johnson the domain name for the sum of $2,000. It is interesting to note here that the cost of filing a domain name dispute with the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) under the Canadian Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) is approximately $2,000. Coincidence? Probably not. When Johnson & Johnson didn’t bite at $2,000, Globe Media reduced its demands to $1,500 for the domain but J&J was still not buying.

I can tell you this, when a company the size of Johnson & Johnson says no to you for $2,000.00, it isn’t the money! For obvious reasons trademark holders tend not to be to trusting in instances where they believe they are dealing with someone who is infringing on their intellectual property. I’ve brokered many domain deals for corporations in exactly this kind of situation simply because the mark holders wanted a 3rd party they trusted to control the domain transfer and handle the financial disbursements.

At any rate, rather than paying Globe Media for the domain name Johnson & Johnson elected to file a formal complain under the CDRP. One of the interesting things that came out in the complaint was Johnson & Johnson’s submission that Globe Media actually tried and failed to register the domain name zantac.ca as a trademark with the Candadian Intellectual Property Office. The domain dispute was adjudicated under the CDRP and decided in favor of the plaintiffs resulting in the transfer of the domain name to Johnson & Johnson.

The decision sets the stage for a rash of further complaints against Venneri and Global Media International and should serve as adequate notice that their cutting edge business model is at the very least flawed. In any event, for anyone who may be interested in some short term email space, as of todays date you can still get a vanity email address for yourself like yourname @ Versace or yourname @ Smirnoff.ca from Global Media for a mere $250 per year! Better hurry, this offer will likely only be available for a limited time.

Microsoft recently filed a claim in the District Court of Florida alleging that Dan Traina and Instaclick Inc. of Florida, have been involved in a pattern of registering and using Internet domain names in a manner which infringes upon trademark rights owned by the Redmond, Washington based software giant.

According to the filings, Microsoft claims that ... 

“the defendants are the registrants and users of numerous Internet domain names which contain or consist of Microsoft’s marks, and or intentional misspellings of Microsoft’s marks.”

Included as Exhibit “A” in the filings was a list of supposedly contentious domains which the plaintiff indicate is “not necessarily exhaustive.” The domains provided to the court included:

CheatsXBox360.com
FaceXBox.com
JoinXBoxLive.com
MyXBox360Deal.com
RegisterMyXBox.com
XBoxLiveSetup.com.com
Encarta98.com
WindwsLiveMessenger.com and,
XBoxMyDeal.com*

A review of the whois information associated with these domain names confirms Dan Traina and Instaclick Inc. as the registrants, except that interestingly, as of today’s date, the domain name XBoxMyDeal.com* is not registered to to either defendant, or anyone else for that matter. The domain name is available. The inclusion of the domain name in the filings in light of its availability is not something I’m going to ponder here although I must say I do find that interesting. While there are a number of plausable explainations for this, for the purposes of this discussion they are not really relevant.

Given that the remaining names are confirmed to be registered to the defendants, and that they all include marks or derviatives of marks owned by Microsoft, the registrations when considered alone appear predatory; but more problematic than this for the defendants is the manner in which they used these domain names.

The domain names registered by Traina and or Instaclick were “parked” with Domain Sponsor, a well known Los Angeles based traffic monetization company. When users land on parked web pages they are greeted with pay per click ads. Unfortunately for the defendants in this case, Microsoft claims that the ads being displayed on the domain names which included their trademarks redirected surfers to websites offering products which compete directly with those offered by Microsoft. Note the reference to "Playstation 2" in the example below. If Microsoft's claims can be proven in court, the result will likely be a determination of infingement.

Unlike many of the previous cybersquatting slash infringement case filings I’ve read which often list previous WIPO cases the defendants may have been involved in or lists of domain names owned by the defendants which target other famous brands, the one filed by Microsoft made no such references. Curious, I did a little digging myself and inless than two minutes was able to put together the following list of domain names all of which are currently registered to Traina and Instaclick.

SearchGooge.com
Feceboox.com
Smsung.net
Amtrcak.com
Googleearl.com
Citybabk.com
Babyeinshtein.com         
1netzero.net
Yharoo.com
Rrbitz.com
Disnecy.com
Paylessl.com
Priclines.com
Geigio.com
Rootsathletic.com
BTicketMaster.com

In my opinion Traina and Instaclick Inc. have a losing case on their hands here and even if they are fortunate enough to wiggle out of the charges levied against them by Microsoft, they'll still be the owners of a bunch of other "loser" type domain names which the legal community is now on notice that they own. From the viewpoint of a domain name investment strategies, theirs is a disaster. It is neither viable, sustainable or even remotely close to being clever.

As long as pay per click parking companies like Domain Sponsor are allowed by their upstream partners to accept names like these in their monetization programs there will always be guys out there who register them and companies that will be forced into trying to uncover and stop them in defense of their brands.

In what might be seen by some as a strange twist of fate the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club have turned to the federal courts for assistance. In a story reported today by the Fresno Bee, writer John Ellis advises that the notorious motorcycle club recently filed a federal lawsuit in Fresno California under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act alleging that a woman by the name of Fawn Meyers is guilty of cyberpiracy and trademark infringement for registering 20 Internet domain names which incorporate trademarks owned by the motorcycle club and attempting to sell the domains for profit.

According to the suit filed by Sacramento attorney Fritz Clapp, Meyers registered the domain names within the last year and then last month attempted to sell them at auction on EBay. According to Clapp, the auction description made mention of the fact that the domain names were valuable because of their association with the motorcycle club. Included in the auction were domains like ha-mc.com and 81ca.com. For the uniformed, H is the eighth letter in the alphabet, A the first, and the ca is a reference to California. The club apparently sells products which incorporate the number 81.

As opposed to filing a claim under the UDRP which would have been quicker, less expensive and likely resulted in the transfer of the domains to them, the motorcycle club chose to file using the federal statue seeking the transfer of the domain names and damages in the amount of $100,000 per domain incident.

If this case goes to trial and the complainants are successful, Meyers could end up owing the Hells Angels $2,000,000 in damages plus costs if awarded. If that happens Meyers is likely hoping and perhaps even praying that the Hells Angels will employ a similarly civilized approach in collecting any monies awarded to them as they displayed in referring the matter to the courts.

The country code top level domain for Cameroon is .cm

In some instances people typing in a .com address might miss the o and end up with a .cm url. A typo of sorts. Well, when they do, someone will be there to greet them....with pay per click advertising!

The entire .cm cctld has been wildcarded. No matter what you type in (with very few exceptions...Yahoo actually registered their name at Yahoo.cm but google missed the boat. In all I think less than 200 .cm domains were reserved by actual registrants; the rest have been wildcarded. What that means is no matter what .cm url you enter into your address bar, you get the ad pages. Check out these for fun. 

IBM.cm
Verizon.cm
Disney.cm
Honda.cm
TacoBell.cm
Walmart.cm
Amazon.cm

YOUgetTHEideaANYTHING.cm will work!

Super typo, super infringemnt or super smart.

Check the Alexa ranking for google.cm and you'll see it ranks as one of the  most popular sites on the Internet! The misdirected traffic from these domains is worth millions. 

Looks like yesterday's post was quite timely.

The Information Technology Association of America (ITTA) put on a seminar in Washington D.C. today the theme of which was: 

"Internet "Click Fraud" Tricks: Domain Name Tasting, Joy Riding, Parking, Kiting and Other Dirty Tricks ".

The press release for the event read in part:

"A new kind of trademark exploitation is emerging online through practices known as domain name “joy riding,” “tasting,” “parking,” “kiting” and “spying.” Cyber squatters are exploiting technical and legal loopholes and using sophisticated technology to automatically generate, register and misuse thousands of variations on well known brand names. These practices are a part of the problem of the Internet advertising “click fraud” problem that Business Week estimates cost advertisers more than billion dollars per year while netting a click-fraud industry $300 million to $500 million a year. 

At an ITAA webcast and in-person meeting being held at AT&T's offices at 1120 20th St. NW, Ste. 1000 N, Washington DC on Thursday, April 26 at 2pm ET, experts will provide the most up-to-date information on the phenomenon, explore its causes and discuss potential solutions. Speakers will also discuss deficiencies in U.S. law, including the U.S. Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, international regulations and existing trademark search-protection services for addressing the issue and will offer solutions to this emerging crisis for trademark holders."

The presenters for the event were: 

Sarah Deutsch

"Sarah Deutsch is Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Verizon on global Internet policy issues, including liability, privacy, intellectual property policy and Internet jurisdiction. She currently represents Verizon on a host of domestic and international Internet issues ranging from digital rights management, privacy, the Hague Convention, European Directives, ICANN, domain name issues, and U.S. Internet legislation.

Sarah was selected by U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to serve as Private Sector Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the World Intellectual Property Organization 1996 Conference on the WIPO Copyright Treaties. She served as one of five negotiators for the U.S. telecommunications industry in negotiations, which resulted in the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

David J. Steele

David J. Steele is a Special Counsel with the law firm Christie, Parker & Hale. He was admitted to bar 2000 (California); U.S. District Court, Central District of California; registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Adjunct Professor, Trademark and Internet Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 2001 to present. Education: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (B.S., Electrical and Computer Eng., 1996); Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (J.D. 2000). Author: "At the Crossroads of Law and Technology," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1033. Author: "Closed Corp. v. Open Sesame: A Simulated Infringement Case Arising in Cyberspace," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1055. Formerly, Engineering Manager, Fibertron Corporation working on design and implementation of high speed computer networks and Internet engineering. Technical Advisor and member of the Network Advisor Board for Networld+Interop. Member of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Member of the Boston Working Group, helping the U.S. Government transfer control of the Internet to ICANN.

Marilyn Cade

Marilyn Cade is an independent consultant focused on the nexus of Internet and technology issues and public policy, and the implications for the Internet, online services, and Internet Governance, following a distinguished career at AT&T. She was involved in organizing and directing industry’s involvement in the processes that led to the founding of ICANN, and has been an active participant in many of the policy initiatives in ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization, including WHOIS, Transfers, and the creation of new gTLD policy. She is an active participant in numerous international fora, including ICANN, ITU, WIPO, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the resulting Internet Governance Forum. For several years, she served on a private sector advisory council for the Director General of WIPO, with a focus on creating a balanced approach to IPR in the online world.

She is recognized both domestically and globally for her expertise in policy issues involving the Internet and domain name issues, as well as the broader issues of Internet Governance.

Given Verizon's pending cybersquatting claim against iReit one might expect  Sarah to have strong opinions on the subject. She does. Here is Sarah's powerpoint presentation.

She paints a picture of an industry in disarry, in need of regulation. The picture she painted of domain parking was not flattering to say the least. I agree with much of what she has to say. While I will most certainly not defend the behaviour of those she uncovers because I believe their behaviour to be indefensable, I have to say,  the picture Sarah paints is incomplete. It is incomplete in two ways.

It is incomplete in that it points to problems yet offers no solutions; and it is incomplete in that it is incomplete, I mean omissive; in a material way.

Let's take a look at the problem and I'll give you the solution!

Sarah states that domain tasting, kiting et al exploits a loophole in the ICANN domain name registration process. Solution, close the loophole. The solution to tasting, to a large extent, and to kiting in its entirety is so utterly simple that the fact it has not been implemented calls into question the effectiveness and motives of ICANN itself. 

There can be no question that tasters and kiters have abused the refund period process. Truth be told they are likely the only ones using that provision of the policy. Registerfly wasn't even registering the domain names their customers paid for! Can you imagine a registrant calling them up and saying "I registered the wrong name by mistake. Can I get a refund? You can charge it back to ICANN." Hardly! In truth, very few registrars, if any, would grant refunds for names registered in error. Some state as much on their sites! 

ELIMINATE THE TASTING PERIOD: ELIMINATE REFUNDS.

Make everyone pay for the domain names they register in full at the time of registration. This change would by definition eliminate kiting. It would also make large scale tasting a very costly proposition, which should reduce its incidence.

If Joe Blow messes up and buys the wrong domain, he's out $10, no big deal.

PROSECUTE DON'T SETTLE

Sue but don't settle. Until the message is sent that the behaviour we're alluding to will not only not be tolerated, but that it will no longer be profitable, the problem is relegated to a financial decision based on cost, benefit and associated risk. Every time a Neiman Marcus settles with a Dotster it does nothing but perpetuate the problem Sarah details. If the perpetrater is making  millions a month, what is an out of court settlement for 10-20 million? Its called a bargain. Squatters have been paying 3-5 years revenue for typo portfolios, trademark holders are settling for several months of revenue! America gave you laws; use them.  

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Why is the focus always on the domain name owner? What about the parking companies serving tens of thousand of domainers? What about the search engines that feed them? The domain owners are at the bottom of the food chain, not the top, follow the money. What is the source of iReit's revenue? Google and Yahoo are the largest Internet advertisers in the world. They buy and sell domain traffic, they populate the ad pages. The controls they have in place are obviously insufficient. Look at their role in this; they're party to this and profit from it. They too take money off of the tables of rights owners, many of whom are their largest customers I might ad. Their role, and motives need to be examined and their business practices challenged. I suppose that the harsh reality is, they're too big to tackle. Someone has to do it otherwise corporate America will run around like firemen trying to put out an endless number of brush fires when they could and should be attacking the source of the flames.  

Having said that, I agree with Sarah in principal. There is a problem and it is serious. The problems with the pay per click industry simply must be addressed. The answer may well be regulation but ICANN must act not just examine.

Sarah great minds think alike! Now, about slide number 10:

iREIT (INTERNET REIT, Inc). the domain name aggregation slash monetization company co-founded by Marc Ostrovsky,  the man who sold business.com for a reported 7.5 million dollars in 1999 (the purchaser claims it was an "all stock, funny money deal"), has been named in a cybersquatting complaint filed in the United States District Court, Houston; on March 23, 2007 by telecommunications industry giant Verizon.  

The suit accuses iREIT of cybersquatting, trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition claiming that iREIT registered over 90 domain names which were confusingly similar to Verizon trademarks.

The complaint goes on to suggest that iREIT then used these 90 plus confusingly similar domain names to divert Internet users intent on locating Verizon products to the sites owned by iREIT where surfers were presented with link based advertisements, which when clicked generated revenue in favor of the accused. Verizon added that the said links often took the visitor to sites offering goods which competed directly with those of Verizon.

The complainant provided the following list of domain names it claims iREIT registered and or had a veiled interest in by way of a claim the defendant registered domains using numerous identitys and that they intentionally provided false and misleading contact information for some of these confusingly similar domains.  

Unfortunately for iREIT, that's not the worst of it. In the pleadings, Verizon stated that "many" of the domain names registered by the Defendants were not only confusingly similar to their trademarks but "to famous or distinctive trademarks owned by others", as well.

Verizon provided an exhibit listing some of the "other" trademarks they claim iReit had targeted for predatory use by way of registration and use of derivations of their domains and it read like a who's who of the business world.

To accentuate the gravity of the situation Verizon claimed that the list of offending names provided had been "for the sake of brevity" limited to "only one famous trademark for each letter of the alphabet." OUCH!

The "brevity" thing was a tad tounge in cheek I think because the list of offending names Verizon supplied as an exhibit was 9 pages long. 

For the sake of brevity, I'm AM going to limit my list somewhat! 

A:                                         

I was following the domain drops last week and shuddered when I saw that the domain name kidporn.net was going to auction. As a parent, the notion of someone taking advantage of, victimizing, using, exploiting or otherwise harming children sickens me!

I hoped against hopes that kidporn.net would be acquired by some advocacy group wanting the doman name out of circulation but in my heart I knew that was unlikely and that more likely than not someone would try and capitolize off of this very sick and slimy domain.

I held out some hope that they might not be able to make money from the domain because afterall none of the search engines would have advertisers for that contextual search string. How could they, it would be illegal no?  Sure enough, if you search kid porn on the majors you get results but no sponsored listings, read advertisers.  

The domain has been registered for a week, has been parked and has already been tested on at least 3 pay per click feeds. 

Domain parking companies throw up pages like these and channel the domain's traffic to paying advertisers. In this instance the advertisers linked to the page are not paying for kid porn traffic. They can't be; that traffic is not available through the Yahoo publisher or Google adwords networks. The advertisers listed on these pages likely have no idea they have been associated with this domain. How are they being served being associated with this domain?

Because neither Google or Yahoo have or would allow ads or advertisers for kid porn, and because no self respecting person or entity would want to advertise or associate themselves with child pornography I can see no reason why this domain should be able to be monetized.

Write to Google, write to Yahoo, tell them that domain traffic like this serves no one and ask them to take action to insure that the quality of the traffic they provide to advertisers is ethical and non exploitive.

Write your congressman or local representative and tell them that the Pay per Click industry is in need of regulation. If there was ever evidence to suggest it, the monetization of this domain is it! The traffic is unwanted, untargeted and exploitive and suggests that the engines tapping into it only to feed it off to unsuspecting advertisers are either unwilling or unable to insure the quality of the advertisements their customers are paying for. 

This should not be happening! 

I came across an interesting company recently, Galt Networks.

According to their website the company formed in 2003, is in the domain name monetization business and provides consulting services in the areas of Internet Strategy, Performace Marketing and New Venture Creation".

The principal Kan Johar is a graduate of the Richard Ivey School of Business. He oversees and manages the monitization of domain portfolios, and is involved in a "number of highly innovative web ventures within the advertising, new media, and finance industries".

CanadianBusiness.com reports that Galt was recently named as one of Canada's top emerging growth companies by Profit Magazine which ranked Galt 7th in a list of 50 up and coming companies.

The company which claims to be "responsible for some of the most highly charged web properties on the web" reports that the ranking was due in large part to the strong growth in its traffic monetization related activities.

As claimed, Galt is in fact responsible for some pretty highly charged websites. Here's a list of domain names registered to and being monetized by Galt:

50cent.ca
avoncanada.ca
bcferrys.ca
bestwesternhotel.ca
bowrings.ca
budgettruck.ca
chaptes.ca
cineplexodion.ca
cinplex.ca
cinplexodeon.ca
citimastercard.ca
cokemusic.ca
eqiufax.ca
equiax.ca
equifa.ca
equifaxcredit.ca
equifaxx.ca
equifx.ca
euqifax.ca
etade.ca
expedai.ca
expeddia.ca
expeia.ca
futireshop.ca
futuresho.ca
futureshoop.ca
hotls.ca
ingdiect.ca
ingdirct.ca
ingdiret.ca
itravel200.ca
lavalief.ca
lavalif.ca
lavlife.ca
mapqeust.ca
mapques.ca
mapquets.ca
mcaffee.ca
montster.ca
mosaikmastercard.ca
mountainequipmentcoop.ca
mytellus.ca
paylessshoesource.ca
pcfinacnial.ca
pier1import.ca
pieroneimports.ca
purlator.ca
royalbak.ca
royalbamk.ca
royalbnak.ca
royalbnk.ca
roylbank.ca
rubbermaid.ca
ryalbank.ca
ryoalbank.ca
sahw.ca
scotabank.ca
scotiabak.ca
sunlif.ca
symantic.ca
taylormade.ca
tdwaterhous.ca
tdwaterhuose.ca
tdwaterhuse.ca
tellusmobility.ca
telusmobiltiy.ca
telusmobilty.ca
ticketmastr.ca
tickettmaster.ca
ticktmaster.ca
toyata.ca
toyta.ca
twocows.ca
vicodin.ca
vidoetron.ca
vieenforme.ca
visionselectronics.ca
voange.ca
vonaeg.ca
vongae.ca
wcja.ca
webrc.ca
wedding-chapel.ca
westernshield.ca
woodbineentertainment.ca
workopolice.ca
wwwbell.ca
wwwbellmobility.ca
wwwbmo.ca
wwwcanadiantire.ca
wwwcanon.ca
wwwcheaptickets.ca
wwwcibc.ca
wwwdate.ca
wwwequifax.ca
wwwescapes.ca
wwwfido.ca
wwwflightcentre.ca
wwwfoodtv.ca
wwwgreyhound.ca
wwwhonda.ca
wwwhotjobs.ca
wwwikea.ca
wwwingdirect.ca
wwwlavalife.ca
wwwmanulife.ca
wwwmastercard.ca
wwwpcfinancial.ca
wwwpcinsurance.ca
wwwradioshack.ca
wwwremax.ca
wwwrogers.ca
wwwrona.ca
wwwroyalbank.ca
wwwroyallepage.ca
wwwscotiabank.ca
wwwsearstravel.ca
wwwstaples.ca
wwwstockhouse.ca
wwwsunholidays.ca
wwwsunlife.ca
wwwsunquest.ca
wwwtdcanadatrust.ca
wwwtdwaterhouse.ca
wwwtelus.ca
wwwtelusmobility.ca
wwwtoyota.ca
wwwtuc.ca
wwwweightwatchers.ca
yahoojobs.ca
zellars.ca

Personally I'm going to pass on Galt's consulting services. I'm not down with their strategy.  

It's hard to know who to trust on the Internet. A little html, a little press, and voila, instant expert! Don't believe everything you read, regardless of the source.

To be fair, Galt does own a couple of domain names which I think may be  apropriate for their business:

ClusterHeadaches.ca, Plagirism.ca and Preditor.ca seem to be particularly suited to their endeavours although the plural of the last domain might have been preferable. 

So your Internet marketing guy tells you that you should buy some pay per click traffic from the search engines to attract visitors to your website. Millions are doing it with varying degrees of success.

Is click-fraud an issue? Should you be concerned? You decide!

If anyone doubted what I had to say yesterday, which was basically that news drives search and that since domains facilitate search opportunists hungry to control eyeballs will register any domain name if they think they can make a buck off of it. To further illustrate the concept here is a further list of domain names that were registered yesterday.

virginiatechshooting.com
virginiatechshooting.net
virginiatechshooting.org
virginiatechshooting.info
virginiatechshooting.us
vatechshooting.com
vatechshooting.net
vatechshooting.org
vatechshooting.info
vatechshooting.us
vatechshooting.biz
vtshooting.com
vtshooting.info
vatechmassacre.com
vatechmassacre.net
vatechmassacre.info
vatechmassacre.biz
vtmassacre.com 
vtmassacre.net
vtmassacre.org
vtmassacre.info
virginiatechrampage.com
vatechrampage.com
vtrampage.com
virginiatechmurders.com
virginiatechmurders.net
virginiatechmurders.org
virginiatechmurders.info
virginiatechmurders.us
vatechmurders.com
vtmurders.com
hokieshootings.com
hokiemassacre.com
blacksburgshootings.com

A large portion of these were registered at GoDaddy and now display pay-per-click ads from which revenues could be derived. The registrant and or GoDaddy are both in a position to potentially profit from this, along with the ad syndicator. Against my better judgement I have provided a link to one of the pages so you could check the display ads out for yourself. Unsuspecting advertisers are paying for the traffic generated from domain names like these and are thereby unwittingly, inextricably and financially associated with this tragedy. It's very sick really. 

And, as if that wasn't enough, there's more! For a period of time after the shootings the identity of the shooter remained a mystery. Within seconds of his name being revealed:

choseunghui.com was registered, followed by choseung-hui.com, followed by chohui.com...you get the idea. These are valuable! Not!

Sometimes I really wonder about the business I am in! 

In the domain world, opportunists are everywhere, and they work quickly.

A month or so ago people were buying up domain names like AnnaNicoleBaby.com, DannieLynnDaddy.com and DannieLynnsDaddy.com to take advantage of the media attention being paid to the Anna Nicole Smith story.

This month, shock jock Don Imus got canned for calling the Rutgers womens basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hoes" and sure enough, within seconds of his faux pas domain names like NappyHeadedHoes.com and NappyHoes.com were gobbled up.

The motivation behind these kinds of registrations generally becomes apparent in the way the domain name is put to use. As of this moment, the domain name NappyHoes.com resolves to ScarletKnights.com, the Rutgers University Athletic Department website. The whois for the domain indicates the registrant, or administrative contact at least, as one Tina Smith, a budding domain speculator. I say this because Tina went to the trouble of indicating that this particular domain name is for sale in the field where she ought to have been indicating the name of the registrant.

It seems Tina would prefer that any offers to purchase the domain be relayed in care of her Yahoo email address as the phone contact information listed in the whois is obviously bogus. 

I wouldn't worry about it too much though Tina, because I doubt the phone is going to be ringing off the hook with offers to purchase this one. Best of luck in the domain business, you're gonna need it!

Focusing in on trends is certainly a good way to source domains but registrations like these are simply too oportunistic to have any real or lasting value; and some just push the envelope too far.

Today's registrations included VirginaTechMassacre.com (which I note is being monetized and has it's DNS set to NS2.This-Domain-Might-Be-For-Sale.com)  VirginaTechShooting.com and VirginiaTechShootings.com. 

To register domains like these in the midst of a tragedy, never mind the wake of one just doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps one or more of these domans will be developed into some kind of  tribute site for the victims. I have no way of knowing that now but the fact that any of these any domain names could be monetized is in my opinion a concern that should be addressed. What possible commercial (.com) value do names like these hold and which advertisers are knowingly paying for or want traffic emminating from domains like thes? Few, if any!

To a real domainer names like these are worthless in every way. They have no resale value and they should not be monetized. Its one thing to be an opportunist, but to take advantage in cases of gross misfortune, to capitalize off of the suffering and misery of innocent victims is as low as it gets.