Changes

[http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201109300700572363P Top Level Domain Hdg. Dot Eco LLC will apply for .eco gTLD]</ref> However, they did not apply through the Dot Eco LLC venture, but instead applied on their own behalf.<ref>[http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus Application Status, gTLDResult.ICANN.org]</ref> Antony Van Couvering previously stated that applying for a community gTLD is too risky. He believes that the .eco TLD will not pass ICANN's Community Priority Evaluation, which means the company's application for .eco TLD will not be under community gTLD category.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/will_anyone_qualify_as_a_community_tld/ Will Anyone Qualify As a Community TLD?]</ref>

[http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201109300700572363P Top Level Domain Hdg. Dot Eco LLC will apply for .eco gTLD]</ref> However, they did not apply through the Dot Eco LLC venture, but instead applied on their own behalf.<ref>[http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus Application Status, gTLDResult.ICANN.org]</ref> Antony Van Couvering previously stated that applying for a community gTLD is too risky. He believes that the .eco TLD will not pass ICANN's Community Priority Evaluation, which means the company's application for .eco TLD will not be under community gTLD category.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/will_anyone_qualify_as_a_community_tld/ Will Anyone Qualify As a Community TLD?]</ref>

[[planet.ECO LLC]], a small disadvantaged business based in Connecticut is the registrant and exclusive trademark holder of .ECO®.  The small business is also a gTLD contender for the ".eco" string and filed an infringement case against gTLD contenders 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 infringing on their mark, 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. In total, five trademark cancellation attempts were made Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC, all of which were unsuccessful.<ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051924&pty=CAN&eno=21 USPTO Cancellation number 92051924]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055469&pty=CAN&eno=11 USPTO Cancellation number 92055469]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055197&pty=CAN&eno=13 USPTO Cancellation number 92055197]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=12 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=18 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref>. 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.       

[[planet.ECO LLC]], a small disadvantaged business based in Connecticut is the registrant and exclusive trademark holder of .ECO®.  The small business is also a gTLD contender for the ".eco" string and filed an infringement case against gTLD contenders 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 infringing on their mark, 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. In total, five trademark cancellation attempts were made by Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC, all of which were unsuccessful.<ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051924&pty=CAN&eno=21 USPTO Cancellation number 92051924]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055469&pty=CAN&eno=11 USPTO Cancellation number 92055469]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055197&pty=CAN&eno=13 USPTO Cancellation number 92055197]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=12 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=18 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref>. 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.       

===Early Criticism===

===Early Criticism===