Changes

==ICANN & Lawsuits==

==ICANN & Lawsuits==

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> 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> 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 October, 2012, ICM filed a counter-suit against Manwin. The company alleged that Manwin has cost them at least $120 million in damages by using its adult industry market power to convince other companies not to do business with the .xxx TLD.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10653-icm-files-120m-lawsuit-over-manwins-xxx-boycott ICM files $120m lawsuit over Manwin’s .xxx “boycott”, domainincite.com]</ref>

In October, 2012, ICM filed a counter-suit against Manwin. The company alleged that Manwin has cost them at least $120 million in damages by using its adult industry market power to convince other companies not to do business with the .xxx TLD.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10653-icm-files-120m-lawsuit-over-manwins-xxx-boycott ICM files $120m lawsuit over Manwin’s .xxx “boycott”, domainincite.com]</ref>

===UDRP===

===Cybersquatting & UDRP cases===

In January, 2012, Manwin filed its first [[UDRP]] case. It claims that a Russian registrant had infringed on its PornHub.com site.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/manwin-files-its-first-cybersquatting-complaint/ Manwin Files its First Cybersquatting Complaint, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

In January, 2012, Manwin filed its first [[UDRP]] case. It claims that a Russian registrant had infringed on its PornHub.com site.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/manwin-files-its-first-cybersquatting-complaint/ Manwin Files its First Cybersquatting Complaint, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

==References==

==References==