A trademark must be “distinctive”, which is why no one can register a generic term as a trademark.
However, a decision of the US Supreme Court on June 30, 2020 allows Booking.com to register its domain name as a trademark.
If for USPTO (U.S Patent and Trademark Office), “booking” is a generic term, and adding the .COM would amount to adding “Company” to a name, thus arguing that booking.com cannot be registered as a trademark, the Court decided otherwise.
Indeed, it considered that “.COM” could not be compared to “company” since the essential criterion would be the identification of consumers.
In particular, the online travel company presented consumers surveys indicating that 75% of consumers thought Booking.com was a brand.
Of course, this first argument, easily challenged by Judge Breyer, was not the one that hit the nail on the head in the final decision. Since a domain name can only belong to one holder, the risks of confusion that must be avoided by trademarks could not arise here, since no one else can use the name Booking.com.
Despite the registration of the booking.com trademark, the company will not be able to use it as a trademark right in disputes that could oppose it to other companies using the generic term “booking” in their trademark.
Reverse DNS is often unknown to domain name managers, especially when the names are hosted by major hosting companies. Reverse DNS allows you to resolve from an IP address to an FQDN. This is the exact opposite of the classic use of DNS, which associates domain names to IP addresses. The reverse DNS allows to answer the question: I have an IP address, what is the FQDN related to it?
Reverse DNS operates by creating a reverse DNS zone in which DNS PTR records (for Pointer Record) will be configured.
Classic DNS: Record A: we know the name of a site and we want to obtain its IP address…
Reverse DNS PTR: we know an IP address and we want to retrieve the name of the site.
The resolution system is constructed in a similar way to the classic resolution. To perform DNS resolution, the IP address to be queried is configured in the reverse zone with the suffix .arpa and points to the required destination. The principle is the same for IP v4 and v6 addresses according to the following construction:
Ex: IPv4: 11.80.92.81.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR capp.perf1.com.
Ex: IPv6: 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.8.c.0.0.1.0.a.2.ip6.arpa. 4080 IN PTR capp.perf1.com.
This construction enables to operate a classic DNS resolution on a domain name with a “.arpa” extension.
Why is this so important?
Reverse DNS is mainly used to track the origin of a website visitor, the origin of an e-mail message, etc. It is usually not as critical as the classic DNS, visitors will reach the website even without the presence of reverse DNS for the IP of the web server or the IP of the visitor.
However, Reverse DNS is important for one particular application: the e-mail system.
Many mail servers on the Internet are configured to reject incoming mail from any IP address that does not have reverse DNS. For those who manage their own mail server, reverse DNS must exist for the IP address from which the outgoing e-mail is sent.
Regardless of the address to which the reverse DNS record of the IP address points, a reverse DNS record is expected. In case of hosting several domains on a single mail server, it is enough to configure the reverse DNS to point to the domain name considered as the main one (mail servers checking the reverse DNS recognize that it is normal to host many domains on a single IP address and that it would be impossible to list all these domains in the reverse DNS for IP). We recommend that you check the possibility of setting up reverse DNS with your DNS hosting solution.
The domain name is the first link between the web user and your website. It is thanks to the domain name that you are found on the Internet, that you are visible, that your identity is displayed and that you develop your business on the net. It is a digital asset of your business.
The more meaningful this name is, the more likely it is to position you effectively on the web, and to best represent your identity.
Discover the right questions to ask yourself before registering a domain name and the registration rules in this new “5 minutes to understand” document to download on the Nameshield’s website.
The Algerian registry has changed its registration conditions quite restrictively. These changes also affect already registered domain names:
The applicant must now be “an entity established in Algeria, having legal representation in Algeria”.
This means that holders or applicants holding only an Algerian brand and who cannot justify a local presence in Algeria will have to move towards the registration of a .TM.DZ domain name.
Please note, registering a .TM.DZ domain name opens an identical registration in .DZ.
Another important element relating to .DZ already registered:
Changes are no longer possible on these names, except for holders who are a local entity. The only “operation allowed” is renewal.
Our advice:
Since the end of 2018, Nameshield has been encouraging you to register your .TM.DZ domain names, we of course maintain this advice and strongly encourage you to quickly register the equivalent of your .DZ in .TM.DZ. This will maintain a high level of reactivity, especially in case of emergency modifications.
Nameshield offers you new resources that will be regularly published and available for download on the Nameshield’s website: the “5 minutes to understand” documents.
Quick and easy to read documents to understand the basics of domain names in just a few minutes.
Discover now the first document “5 minutes to understand – The reading a domain name“:
The .eu Web Awards is an online competition, launched in 2014 by EURID, the .eu registry, which rewards the best websites in the .eu, .ею or .ευ extensions, divided into 5 categories:
Leaders
Rising stars
Laurels
House of .eu
Better world
It is possible to apply until 05 August 2020 and the participation is free of charge: https://webawards.eurid.eu/
Once your candidature has been validated, it’s up to the public to vote! The 3 websites under each category that have won the most votes will then become finalists.
The big winners will be revealed at the Gala held in Brussels on 18 November 2020, where the 15 finalists will be invited.
The 5 winners will win the following prizes:
a two-month billboard advertising campaign in Brussels airport
a trophy, a customised video for communication support
the .eu Web Awards icon to use on their websites and social networks.
Do you own a website in .eu, .ею or .ευ? This contest can be a nice opportunity to liven up your social networks, generate additional traffic and win the prizes mentioned above.
The news came on 30 April through a press release from the ICANN Board announcing that it had taken the decision to reject the sale of Public Interest Registry (PIR), the .ORG registry, to the private equity firm Ethos Capital.
For reminder, at the end of 2019, the announcement of the sale of the .ORG registry to Ethos Capital created a real debate and caused several concerns from NGOs, such as the increase of .ORG prices and the implementation of rights protection policies that could lead to a form of censorship (Find all the articles on this subject on the blog).
In mid-April, while the organization had to decide whether or not to approve the sale of the registry, the transaction was still pending. ICANN allowed itself additional time to complete its review, after receiving numerous letters of opposition, including one from California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra.
The decision to reject this deal was finally announced on Thursday 30 April “as a result of various factors that create unacceptable uncertainty over the future of the third largest gTLD registry”.
One of the main reasons for this decision is the “change from the fundamental public interest nature of PIR to an entity that is bound to serve the interests of its corporate stakeholders, and which has no meaningful plan to protect or serve the .ORG community.”
Among the reasons for this rejection is also the issue of financing, since this transaction could compromise the financial stability of the registry. Indeed, the proposed sale would change PIR from a not-for-profit entity to a for-profit entity with a $360 million debt obligation, which would not benefit PIR or the .ORG community, but the financial interests of Ethos and its investors.
Furthermore, the PIR proposal to implement a “Stewardship Council“, which aimed to make the entity more accountable to the community, did not convince ICANN either. According to the organization, this council “might not be properly independent“.
ICANN’s decision is therefore a victory for the .ORG community and Electronic Frontier Foundation, which does not stop there and adds “the .ORG registry still needs a faithful steward, because the Internet Society has made clear it no longer wants that responsibility. ICANN should hold an open consultation, as they did in 2002, to select a new operator of the .ORG domain that will give nonprofits a real voice in its governance, and a real guarantee against censorship and financial exploitation.”
Comparative analysis of the famous Top Level Domains (.com, .fr…)
The crux of the war for high-visibility websites is the download time. As a natural referencing factor admitted by Google, this download time can be significantly impacted during DNS resolution. If it is necessary to rely on a first-class DNS infrastructure, the choice of the extension associated with a domain name is important. Indeed, not all registries perform equally well in terms of DNS, not to say that some have disappointing performance. The offer in terms of TLDs (nearly 1400) has greatly increased since ICANN’s New Extensions Program. Analysis to follow.
A quick look at DNS resolution time and its impact on load time
Resolving a domain such as nameshield.net follows several steps before you can contact the content server. The DNS resolver contacts the root DNS servers (.), then the DNS servers of the registry of the extension concerned (.net) in order to obtain the list of DNS servers responsible for the domain, and finally these DNS servers to obtain the requested response. The response obtained is certainly cached by the DNS resolver (generally managed by the Internet Service Provider), but this will not always be the case depending on the popularity of your domain.
This means that if the DNS for the top level domain (.net) is slow, it may actually delay DNS resolution for the domain itself and, in the very unlikely worst case scenario, even cause a breakdown. There’s not much you can do about this, apart from choosing the right TLD.
Comparative Analysis
Bunny CDN, a Slovenian content delivery player, conducted the following surprising analysis. Relying on their global network, they monitored DNS performance worldwide from more than 50 sites and networks.
For each TLD, their system chose a random name server published for each top-level domains and queried a random domain name. The results were grouped by region and the data recorded every 10 seconds.
Results
They tested 42 of the most popular top-level domains and then aggregated the results into a global median average and an 85-percentile aggregation (the 15% slowest responses were not taken into account). These tests were conducted only from their network, so a more complete study would certainly be worthwhile, but they provide a good overview.
Source : BunnyCDN
The results were quite surprising
The most surprising domains are .info and .org, which have shown really poor performance, especially in the 85 percentile range, despite their seniority and the millions of domains registered. It seems that 4 of the 6 names servers function extremely poorly, which explains the poor results.
The .net and .com have been very slightly slower than expected in Europe and North America, but otherwise offer excellent and stable performance in all regions, visible in the global median. .net and .com have much larger networks, but remain a very interesting choice for absolute maximum performance.
Less expected is the performance of the .co, .biz and .in TLDs, well ahead of the others.
Some new domains (.online, .top, .blog…), which are attractive from a marketing point of view and growing strongly, show disappointing performances…
… on the other hand, very good surprises for .live, .email, .news, managed by Donuts Inc or .club and .buzz managed by Neustar Inc, with, however, a very important decrease in performance in regions outside Europe and North America, which further aggravates the problem.
42 of the most popular TLDs among the 1400+ available have been tested. Without drawing any definitive conclusions, we can assume that many may not work much better.
Conclusion
Do you need to revolutionize the management of your domain name portfolio and the choice of TLDs for your most visible websites? Should you switch everything to .biz or .co immediately to increase performance?
Certainly not. First of all, DNS responses are heavily cached, especially for very popular websites, resolvers may not need to reach many top-level names servers. Then, the choice of a domain name is primarily driven by marketing imperatives (brand, geographical area, name availability) that are often far more impactful than the additional 50 milliseconds of loading time for the first page to load.
However, if you are trying to compress absolutely every last bit of performance and ensure high reliability in a system where every last millisecond counts, then you may want to think twice before choosing your domain. The differences aren’t huge, but if you’re aiming for that one-second loading time, things can add up to 200 ms in some cases.
Choosing the right TLD based on DNS performance is indeed a good thing, but probably not a cause for too much concern.
As a registrar, Nameshield has an accurate view of the typology of abandoned domain names and domain names kept by their holders when they clean up their portfolio.
As in all sectors of activity, phenomena that could be said to be “trendy” can even be seen in cybersquatting and therefore in domain names that are abandoned or maintained.
Let’s take the example of typosquatting, there was a time when it was essential to register domain names that included your trademark with as many typographical variants as possible (if your trademark contained the letter O, it was important to register a version with the number 0 instead of the O etc.), because cybersquatters were then very focused on this type of hijacking attempt. A decade later, cybercrime has changed and, while it is still important to register typographical variants, only the most pertinent ones are relevant today. As a result, many companies have abandoned the most distant variants.
The same goes for extensions. At certain periods, the risks of cybersquatting are greater depending on the registration conditions. A “first-come, first-served” extension is more at risk than a TLD requiring, for example, a locally registered trademark. Since the domain names registrations rules are set by each registry, they are likely to change over time, with the result that potential abandonments may occur.
An interesting study published at the end of 2019 by Frank Moraes, indicated that considering the first 8 extensions, only 29.79% of registered domain names would be renewed each year. Of the remaining 70.21%, 41.22% would simply expire and 28.99% would be registered by a new holder.
Only one domain name out of three would therefore be renewed the year following its registration! However, the rates vary significantly and the highest renewal percentages are unsurprisingly for .NET (46.3%), .ORG (44.24%) and .INFO (34.56%).
On the contrary, the lowest renewal rates are for .CN (1.72%), .BIZ (16.6%) and .TOP (22.22%).
What about .COM? The .COM TLD remains undoubtedly the most popular extension. If the study cited above only places the .COM in fourth position in the percentage of renewals (certainly taking into account the sampling), the renewal rate of the .COM is more around 80% and is relatively stable from year to year.
A few months ago, in previous articles, we mentioned the sale by Internet Society of Public Interest Registry (PIR), the .ORG registry, to Ethos Capital, a private equity firm.
The .ORG is the reference extension for non-profit organizations and the .ORG registry represents more than 10.5 million domains. For reminder, the announcement of the sale of the registry caused several concerns in the NGO community.
In front of these many complaints, ICANN had already postponed the approval of the .ORG registry’s sale to Ethos Capital and requested additional information from Internet Society.
Further postponement of the .org registry’s sale after the intervention of the Attorney General of California
On Thursday 16 April, when the ICANN Board was to decide whether or not to approve the sale of the registry, it was finally decided at that meeting, to postpone it again until 4 May 2020. This fourth postponement was caused by a letter received the day before from California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, asking ICANN to reject the sale. He explains that it “raises serious concerns that cannot be overlooked“.
“Empowering a for-profit entity that could undermine the accessibility and affordability of the .org domain, which serves nonprofits, should concern all of us” the Attorney General’s office told The Register.
The secret nature of Ethos Capital is a source of concern
In his letter, the Attorney General expressed several concerns about the transaction, including the secret nature of the proposed buyer, Ethos Capital: “Little is known about Ethos Capital and its multiple proposed subsidiaries“. Ethos Capital is criticized for its unusual corporation structure (the purchase involves six different companies, all of which were registered on the same day in October 2019) and its lack of transparency regarding its future plans.
In its notice published last Thursday, ICANN affirms having listened to the community and having demanded greater transparency and more guarantees from PIR. According to the organization, the Attorney General’s letter does not take into account the recent work that PIR has done regarding Public Interest Commitments, to make the entity more responsible to the community. ICANN requested PIR to strengthen these commitments, and a draft of the revised Public Interest Commitments has been provided to ICANN.
ICANN’s behavior and Internet Society criticized
ICANN has also been subject to a number of criticisms during the entire process, particularly as it appeared that the organization’s staff was pushing for approval of the transaction despite near universal opposition to it from the Internet community.
In addition, early last week, ICANN’s founding CEO Michael Roberts and original Board Chair Esther Dyson wrote a letter to Xavier Becerra criticizing the transaction and accusing their successors of abandoning ICANN’s core principles.
According to the Attorney General, this transaction will have an impact on ICANN’s reputation given the way the organization has handled the situation.
Not only ICANN and Ethos have been criticized by the Attorney General’s office, Xavier Becerra also blames the Internet Society for proposing the sale of the .ORG registry to Ethos Capital: “ISOC purports to support the Internet, yet its actions, from the secretive nature of the transaction, to actively seeking to transfer the .ORG registry to an unknown entity, are contrary to its mission and potentially disruptive to the same system it claims to champion and support“.
Xavier Becerra’s letter does not threaten ICANN with action if it does approve the sale. However, it does indicate that the Attorney General of California holds significant authority over the organization and is prepared to act, particularly since this sale could affect hundreds of thousands of other non-profit organizations.
“Given the concerns stated above, and based on the information provided, the .ORG registry and the global Internet community – of which innumerable Californians are a part – are better served if ICANN withholds approval of the proposed sale and transfer of PIR and the .ORG registry to the private equity firm Ethos Capital. This office will continue to evaluate this matter, and will take whatever action necessary to protect Californians and the nonprofit community.”
In a notice published last Thursday, ICANN thus declared the postponement of its decision: “We have agreed to extend the review period to 4 May 2020, to permit additional time to complete our review.”
Nameshield uses cookies
Nameshield wishes to use cookies to ensure the proper functioning of the site and, with our partners, to measure its audience🍪.
Nameshield wishes to use cookies to ensure the proper performance of the website and, with our partners, to monitor its audience. More information in our Cookie Policy 🍪.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement
1 year
Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent
1 year
Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_25904574_14
1 minute
Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid
1 day
Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Cookie
Duration
Description
NID
6 months
NID cookie, set by Google, is used for advertising purposes; to limit the number of times the user sees an ad, to mute unwanted ads, and to measure the effectiveness of ads.
