9,082
edits
Changes
→Contention
[http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201109300700572363P Top Level Domain Hdg. Dot Eco LLC will apply for .eco gTLD]</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> 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, a company based in Connecticut and trademark holder of .eco and a possible applicant for the .eco string 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.
Planet.eco, a company based in Connecticut and trademark holder of .eco and a possible applicant for the .eco string 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>
<ref>[http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/91343/planet-eco-llc-v-big-room-inc-et-al/summary/
[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>
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>
===Early Criticism===
===Early Criticism===