Highlights of public sales include:

• Top .com: kindred.com at 50,000 USD
• Top ccTLD: interest.me at 80,000 USD
• Top “other” TLD: amara.org at 25,000 USD

See all of the sales reported by Sedo after the jump.

Related posts:

• Sedo sells over $2.1M USD in domains the previous week
• Sedo & Afternic Sales Report of the Previous Week
• Domains Sales of the Previous Week, lead by Navidad.com
• Sedo Sales for the Previous Week Including GamesForGirls.com at $500,000
• Domain Name Sales Report for the Previous Week

Sales where lead by Summon.com which went for a very reasonable (IMHO) $17K

Also like Adopted.com which sold for $15,500

On the other hand Instantly.net for almost $17K seems less of a bargain.

Here are the reportable sales:

Today in a Twitter chat, I asked ICANN how many people requested a refund under this program.

The answer I got was:

“As of last night we had received two new requests for refund since full refund offer, one for $185k & one for $5K”

I’m personally not surprised there has been virtually no takers for a refund.

After waiting for many years,  no one in the game is going to leave the game due to a six week delay.

I thought at the time it was a smart move by ICANN to head off lawsuits by simply letting anyone who paid into the system to let them drop out and give them a 100% refund.

Now it seems even smarter.

In other news out of the Twitter chat:

An update on new timeline including the Big Revel will be released on or before May 29th  but that the “Target reveal date will still before Prague”

In all ICANN was asked what seemed to be well over 50 questions, they answered 15.

You can see the chat under the Twitter #NewgTLD

You can follow us on Twitter here.

 …

39% of total sales were the result of Buy Now listings.

Highlights of public sales include:

·         Top .com: kindred.com at 50,000 USD
·         Top ccTLD: interest.me at 80,000 USD
·         Top “other” TLD: amara.org at 25,000 USD

Here are the reportable sales:

Yesterday a federal court affirmed a lower courts order throwing the case out for “lack of personal jurisdiction” against the owner of Faceporn.com

The owner of Faceporn  is Thomas Pedersen of Bergen, Norway.

According to federal law for a nonresident defendant to be sued in the US they must be found commit an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum state and that caused harm that the nonresident defendant knew would likely be suffered in the forum state which in this case was California.

The previous judge ruled that Facebooke failed to  “put forth factual allegations that suggest that confusion actually has occurred or that any of Facebook’s potential customers have been sidetracked to Faceporn’s website as a result of defendants’ conduct.”

 …

”

The TLD Application System, or TAS, has reopened. All registered applicants can now log in, review and submit their applications.

The system will remain open until 23:59 GMT/UTC on 30 May 2012. Consistent with our previous practice and to allow the application window to open as soon as possible, two-hour maintenance windows have been scheduled as follows: 22 May at 16:30 GMT/UTC, 25 May at 23:00 UTC, and 29 May at 22:00 UTC.

Applicants are encouraged to review “Top Things Users Should Know When TAS Reopens,” posted on the new gTLD microsite at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/top-ten. The document provides advice on logging into and completing applications, submitting wire transfers, and contacting customer service with any issues users might encounter.

During the last few weeks, we have fixed the technical glitch that caused us to take the system offline. Also, to address user feedback, we have improved the overall system performance and the HTML preview function.

In our continuing review of the system logs and system traffic, we determined that in two instances, a single file might have been temporarily unavailable to an applicant. Full access to those two files has been restored. ICANN notified the affected users.

We recognize and regret the inconvenience caused by this glitch and the delayed closing of the application window.”…

The complaint was brought by Masai Clothing Company of Copenhagen, Denmark which holds several community trademarks from “several European countries”  on the term Masai.

Masai is also a dictionary word for the name of an African Tribe.

Here are the relevant facts and findings by the panel:

The domain name was originally registered on May 15, 2000. It currently routes to a website posting directory links to sites related to Africa and travel.

“According to archives available at “www.archive.org”, the website in 2000 advertised a Chicago-based software services company named “Masai Management.” From 2001 to 2005 the website displayed instead text-generated directory links referring to a number of categories (often travel related).”

“In September 2005, the website displayed an African animal scene banner, then later in 2005, the site displayed numerous links relating to African travel destinations. Near the end of 2005, there are no available archives.”

“Screen captures of the website on September 15, 2008 show a photo of what appears to be African tribes-people, with a search box, an appearance that is consistent until September 2009″

“Respondent contends that the links were generated by a third-party search result service provider. Respondent also appears to make the debatable assertion that a Respondent absolves itself of responsibility for the appearance of its website if a third party actually generates the content. Although Complaint Annexes 8 and 9 are ambiguously presented, the Response nonetheless concedes that “[a] recent change in service providers by the Respondent caused a brief and incidental display of subject matter relating to clothing.”

Based upon this concession, Complainant’s evidence, and other evidence bearing upon the appearance of the website during years prior to the time of Complainant’s Annexes 8 and 9, the Panel finds that there was a brief display of links on Respondent’s website that directed users to Complainant’s competitors in the recent past. ”

Those links are no longer present.”

“Whether or not that recent display of links to competitors was a deliberate act for which Respondent has responsibility does not, in the Panel’s view, shed light on the question of bad faith registration nearly six and one-half years ago. ”

“The Panel appreciates that it can be difficult for a complainant to prove a respondent’s intention at the time of registration.”

“The only allegations touching on the element of bad faith registration are limited to the following: “It is held that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business.…

I just saw an ad for a site Zumu.Co running nationally on ESPN.

No Zumu.co does not own Zumu.com nor does it own Zumo.co or Zumo.com

Zumu.Co is a way to sell your used Games, Dvd’s and Cd’s for cash or they will contribute the funds to a charity.

The company is headquartered out of Detroit.

 …