Changes

On November 15, 2011, Manwin and Digital Playground filed an anti-trust lawsuit against [[ICM Registry]] and [[ICANN]]. The company claims that ICM and ICANN conducted anti-competitive, monopolistic conduct, price gouging and unfair practices. The complainants asked the court to issue an injunction order on the [[.xxx]] [[sTLD]], order ICANN to open a re-bidding process for the sTLD, and to require price constraints for ICM. The legal charges were filed at the United States Central District Court of California.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-sues-icann-and-icm-over-xxx/ YouPorn sues ICANN and ICM over .xxx]</ref> Following the lawsuit, Manwin also requested the [[ICDR|International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] conduct an [[IRP|Independent Review Proceedings]] (IRP) with regards to ICANN's actions.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/manwin-v-icann/notice-of-independent-review-16nov11-en.pdf Notice of Independent Review]</ref> <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/manwin-v-icann/request-for-independent-review-16nov11-en.pdf Request for IRP]</ref> An interesting aside is that Manwin is only the second company to ever file an IRP with ICANN, the first was filed by ICM Registry after the [[ICANN Board]] initially approved then denied the [[.xxx]] extension after the 2004 round of gTLD expansion. Manwin's IRP was aimed mainly at .xxx, but raises questions of legitimacy for the rest of ICANN's 2012 [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

On November 15, 2011, Manwin and Digital Playground filed an anti-trust lawsuit against [[ICM Registry]] and [[ICANN]]. The company claims that ICM and ICANN conducted anti-competitive, monopolistic conduct, price gouging and unfair practices. The complainants asked the court to issue an injunction order on the [[.xxx]] [[sTLD]], order ICANN to open a re-bidding process for the sTLD, and to require price constraints for ICM. The legal charges were filed at the United States Central District Court of California.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-sues-icann-and-icm-over-xxx/ YouPorn sues ICANN and ICM over .xxx]</ref> Following the lawsuit, Manwin also requested the [[ICDR|International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] conduct an [[IRP|Independent Review Proceedings]] (IRP) with regards to ICANN's actions.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/manwin-v-icann/notice-of-independent-review-16nov11-en.pdf Notice of Independent Review]</ref> <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/manwin-v-icann/request-for-independent-review-16nov11-en.pdf Request for IRP]</ref> An interesting aside is that Manwin is only the second company to ever file an IRP with ICANN, the first was filed by ICM Registry after the [[ICANN Board]] initially approved then denied the [[.xxx]] extension after the 2004 round of gTLD expansion. Manwin's IRP was aimed mainly at .xxx, but raises questions of legitimacy for the rest of ICANN's 2012 [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

In January, 2012, Manwin acquired Digital Playground, another corporation engaged in lawsuit with ICM Registry.<ref>[http://www.xbiz.com/news/143303 Manwin Acquires Digital Playground, xbiz.com]</ref>

In January, 2012, Manwin acquired Digital Playground.<ref>[http://www.xbiz.com/news/143303 Manwin Acquires Digital Playground, xbiz.com]</ref> Later that month, ICANN and ICM both filed motions to dismiss the case. ICANN argued that, as it was an organization not engaged in "trade or commerce," the US anti-trust laws did not apply to it; additionally, both ICM and ICANN argued that Manwin's filing was tantamount to complaining about the possible increase in competition for them. ICM cited that Manwin had earlier attempt to approach them with a supposed mutually-beneficial agreement, in which Manwin would acquire various premium .xxx domains for free, in exchange sharing the profits of these domains with ICM. When ICM turned down the agreement, Manwin Managing Partner Fabian Thylmann said that he would do whatever he could to stop .xxx.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-antitrust-law-does-not-apply-to-us/ ICANN: antitrust law does not apply to us, domainincite.com]</ref> ICANN's and ICM's motions to dismiss can be found [http://domainincite.com/docs/icann-manwin-motion-to-dismiss.pdf here] and [http://domainincite.com/docs/manwin-icm-motion-to-dismiss-2.pdf here] respectively.

==References==

==References==