<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Even Domainers Can Make Mistakes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/</link>
	<description>Popular articles on domaining, website development, seo techniques and domain name investment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:32:33 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rock</title>
		<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/comment-page-1/#comment-4523</link>
		<dc:creator>rock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/#comment-4523</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comments however the point of this article was to let some of the industry bloggers be aware of domains that are still available.

Remember, many domainers talk about trademarks but never actually apply for one, many talk about trademark infringement but only have a loose idea of what it really means (even the best lawyers can have this problem).

Take your blog for example. A blog I like to read.  However if you think registering Dnundergound.net for domain names is in bad faith maybe it is – however bad faith is in the eye of the beholder especially with a name that has an acronym and as far as I can see no trademark attached to it or applied for.

DNunderground could stand for – Daytime News (underground), Denmark Nightclubs (underground), David Nash (underground) – any possible combination. Even in the domain world, without a trademark a “David Nash” could write about domain names and not legally step on your name.

Your comment was especially interesting since you said “Yes, typo domains are very popular, such as Gooogle.com or something like that, but taking another fellow domainer’s name/brand is just wrong”

Do you mean its ok to register a typo of a federally registered trademark but not ok to register the name of a blog which has no trademark??

Seems like a double standard to me.

Again, the point of the article was not to promote registration of these domains – it was to let industry bloggers know some of the domain extensions still available that relate to their brand … so they could register them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comments however the point of this article was to let some of the industry bloggers be aware of domains that are still available.</p>
<p>Remember, many domainers talk about trademarks but never actually apply for one, many talk about trademark infringement but only have a loose idea of what it really means (even the best lawyers can have this problem).</p>
<p>Take your blog for example. A blog I like to read.  However if you think registering Dnundergound.net for domain names is in bad faith maybe it is – however bad faith is in the eye of the beholder especially with a name that has an acronym and as far as I can see no trademark attached to it or applied for.</p>
<p>DNunderground could stand for – Daytime News (underground), Denmark Nightclubs (underground), David Nash (underground) – any possible combination. Even in the domain world, without a trademark a “David Nash” could write about domain names and not legally step on your name.</p>
<p>Your comment was especially interesting since you said “Yes, typo domains are very popular, such as Gooogle.com or something like that, but taking another fellow domainer’s name/brand is just wrong”</p>
<p>Do you mean its ok to register a typo of a federally registered trademark but not ok to register the name of a blog which has no trademark??</p>
<p>Seems like a double standard to me.</p>
<p>Again, the point of the article was not to promote registration of these domains – it was to let industry bloggers know some of the domain extensions still available that relate to their brand … so they could register them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DNUnderground.com</title>
		<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/comment-page-1/#comment-4471</link>
		<dc:creator>DNUnderground.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/#comment-4471</guid>
		<description>I came across this article, and was bothered, being the current owner of the domain blog, DNUnderground.com. It is totally unrespectable in the domain world to steal another&#039;s idea, name, or brand. Yes, typo domains are very popular, such as Gooogle.com or something like that, but taking another fellow domainer&#039;s name/brand is just wrong. One should really make their own name/brand, and make a name for themselves, not steal another persons name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I came across this article, and was bothered, being the current owner of the domain blog, DNUnderground.com. It is totally unrespectable in the domain world to steal another&#8217;s idea, name, or brand. Yes, typo domains are very popular, such as Gooogle.com or something like that, but taking another fellow domainer&#8217;s name/brand is just wrong. One should really make their own name/brand, and make a name for themselves, not steal another persons name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay M</title>
		<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/comment-page-1/#comment-378</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/#comment-378</guid>
		<description>I like the idea of reg all major extensions and singular/plurals..

Thanks for wonderful article - Jay</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the idea of reg all major extensions and singular/plurals..</p>
<p>Thanks for wonderful article &#8211; Jay</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ms Domainer</title>
		<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/comment-page-1/#comment-375</link>
		<dc:creator>Ms Domainer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/#comment-375</guid>
		<description>*

When it comes to one&#039;s own name and alias, it DOES make sense to nab the major TLDs. I probably went overboard with &quot;Ms Domainer,&quot; but better to be safe than sorry.

Also, when the opportunity came up, I also bid on MsDomain.com and was able to acquire it, which I&#039;m using as a portal page (no ads) to my main page. I thought maybe if someone set up a site on this domain, it might cause confusion for me (although someone else has the .net, but I&#039;m not going to sweat that). 

However, for general domaining and minor sites, I see no need to reg every TLD in sight. I&#039;m more likely to reg the singular and plural dot com of a term that I think might have potential (and if it makes sense).

*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*</p>
<p>When it comes to one&#8217;s own name and alias, it DOES make sense to nab the major TLDs. I probably went overboard with &#8220;Ms Domainer,&#8221; but better to be safe than sorry.</p>
<p>Also, when the opportunity came up, I also bid on MsDomain.com and was able to acquire it, which I&#8217;m using as a portal page (no ads) to my main page. I thought maybe if someone set up a site on this domain, it might cause confusion for me (although someone else has the .net, but I&#8217;m not going to sweat that). </p>
<p>However, for general domaining and minor sites, I see no need to reg every TLD in sight. I&#8217;m more likely to reg the singular and plural dot com of a term that I think might have potential (and if it makes sense).</p>
<p>*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: belshass</title>
		<link>http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/comment-page-1/#comment-372</link>
		<dc:creator>belshass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:01:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newfoundnames.com/domainers/domainers-are-not-perfect/#comment-372</guid>
		<description>Cheers Alan,
just secured
thebest BLOG intheworld.net  and .org at Godaddy. 

I admit I was tempted to get 
bestBLOGintheworld too but, I unfortunately 
do not own the .com for this one.
(and I&#039;m not a jerk :) )

for those following suit, here&#039;s a useful promo code for .net and .org (cjctld749)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cheers Alan,<br />
just secured<br />
thebest BLOG intheworld.net  and .org at Godaddy. </p>
<p>I admit I was tempted to get<br />
bestBLOGintheworld too but, I unfortunately<br />
do not own the .com for this one.<br />
(and I&#8217;m not a jerk <img src='http://www.newfoundnames.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  )</p>
<p>for those following suit, here&#8217;s a useful promo code for .net and .org (cjctld749)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
