Why Prefixes and Suffixes GUARANTEE an endless supply of .Com Domain Names

Morning Folks!

The title says it all and it is all so simple. Prefixes and suffixes GUARANTEE there is an endless supply of .coms. Put "The" in front of anything. Put "USA" at the end of anything. Or "global" or a "Location based" prefix or suffix. Add a dash. There are more .coms available than have been resgistered by a factor of 1000.

All I can do from here is add to my argument. But what for? The example speaks for itself and THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of prefixes and suffixes are out there to use. com in short supply? NONSENSE!

Rick Schwartz



7 thoughts on “Why Prefixes and Suffixes GUARANTEE an endless supply of .Com Domain Names

  1. Bruno M. Kebran

    Be careful here, or perhaps do some clarification so people don’t get confused and end up in trouble with WIPO and UDRP why?

    Because one of most important determinants in a UDRP is that is the domain name is “Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s mark.” so the idea of add a suffix or dash and you’re good is not entirely that easy. Some cases have even been ruled for complainants even in the absence of trademarks (typo squatting) where website owners can prove reputation for their existing domains. The biggest exception here might (and i am using might here) be domains names of common worlds but that can be a stretch too. Examine this except below.

    “It is settled law that adding the term “my” as prefix to a registered trade mark does not diffuse the confusingly similar nature between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s marks. See, Infospace.com, Inc. v. Delighters, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0068, (finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s mark);

    Reply
  2. Bruno M. Kebran

    see also, NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, WIPO Case No. D2000-0497 (finding that the “domain name which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”).

    UDRP arbitrators are in accord with these UDRP decisions. See, for example, PC2Call Limited v. Bernard Ferrie, NAF Claim No. 103181/FA103181, where the Panel found the domain name to be confusingly similar to complainant’s mark PC2CALL.”

    Reply
  3. Joe Parvin

    What you say, Bruno, is correct. Thanks for the warning. Also correct, is the salient of Rick’s remarks. Caution and taste should limit registrations, but “taste” is what most limiting. When Rick says: “There are more .coms available than have been registered by a factor of 1000.”, he’s using a very small multiplier.

    Reply
  4. Reality bites...

    Also, its not just the .coms that already exist but say for US users there’s the .us extension along with .net .org .info etc etc.

    There’s already more than enough extensions to go around.

    In terms of case law myinfospace.com would lose at URDP because like with trademarks it would be assessed as ‘my infospace’ and as such the word infospace would be protected therefore the defendant would lose.

    Reply
  5. florida

    Dear Mr Schwartz
    we need you to bad mouth these new tlds. someone need to do so and you have the following because you have paid your dues. new tlds need to collapse like obamacare.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.