Changes

planet.ECO LLC is one of the four applicants for the [[.eco]] string as part of the [[New gTLD Program]]. The small disadvantaged business paid the required $185,000 application fee to ICANN, and has successfully completed an extended and detailed evaluation, requiring over $10 million in guaranteed committed funds, by ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11653286.htm]</ref>

planet.ECO LLC is one of the four applicants for the [[.eco]] string as part of the [[New gTLD Program]]. The small disadvantaged business paid the required $185,000 application fee to ICANN, and has successfully completed an extended and detailed evaluation, requiring over $10 million in guaranteed committed funds, by ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11653286.htm]</ref>

planet.ECO LLC is the exclusive US Trademark holder of ECO(R) <ref>[http://planetdoteco.com]</ref>. The company filed an infringement case against [[Big Room Inc.]] and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room and Dot Eco LLC to stop submitting further documentation and withdraw their application for the .eco string with ICANN. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet.ECO and it should be cancelled by the court. Dot Eco also argued that the complainant is is trying to prevent competition. On the other hand, Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. <ref>

planet.ECO LLC is the exclusive US Trademark holder of ECO(R) <ref>[http://planetdoteco.com]</ref>. The company filed an infringement case against [[Big Room Inc.]] and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room Inc. and Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd. (presently Minds + Machines Group Limited (MMX)) to stop submitting further documentation and withdraw their application for the .eco string with ICANN. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet.ECO and it should be cancelled by the court. Dot Eco also argued that the complainant is is trying to prevent competition. On the other hand, Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. <ref>

[http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/91343/planet-eco-llc-v-big-room-inc-et-al/summary/ Planet.Eco LLC v. Big Room Inc. et al]</ref> <ref>[http://www.remarksblog.com/internet/as-gtld-window-closes-legal-disputes-heat/ AS GTLD WINDOW CLOSES, LEGAL DISPUTES HEAT UP: RIVAL.ECO APPLICANTS SPAR IN CALIFORNIA]</ref> <ref>

[http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/91343/planet-eco-llc-v-big-room-inc-et-al/summary/ Planet.Eco LLC v. Big Room Inc. et al]</ref> <ref>[http://www.remarksblog.com/internet/as-gtld-window-closes-legal-disputes-heat/ AS GTLD WINDOW CLOSES, LEGAL DISPUTES HEAT UP: RIVAL.ECO APPLICANTS SPAR IN CALIFORNIA]</ref> <ref>

[http://domainincite.com/three-way-legal-fight-over-eco-breaks-out/ Three-way legal fight over .eco breaks out]</ref>

[http://domainincite.com/three-way-legal-fight-over-eco-breaks-out/ Three-way legal fight over .eco breaks out]</ref>