Template:Did you know nominations/Trademark Clearinghouse


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Fuebaey (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Trademark Clearinghouse

 * ... that in the first month of launch, the Trademark Clearinghouse blocked over 475,000 domain names from being registered after sending over 500,000 Trademark Claims notices?

Created by Amcconachie (talk). Nominated by Squeekur (talk) at 04:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC).


 * 1: Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new (developed in userspace, moved to main on Oct 25, so under 7 days), long enough. It has a bit of proseline issues in text, but that's not a critical core content issue, it has good referencing and otherwise appears to meet core content policies.
 * 2: Symbol possible vote.svg While the hook is short enough, and sourced/validated, I am worried it is a direct quote from the original source (starting from "delivered..." that in the body of the article is appropriately quoted. I think you need to paraphrase the hook to remove that issue.
 * 3: Symbol confirmed.svg Nom has 0 previous DYK so no QPQ required. No image provided, no check needed.


 * All this needs is a fixup of the hook's wording to avoid the exact quote. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Change is better, might I suggest "...blocked over 475,000 domain names from being registered after sending over 500,000 Trademark Claims notices"? (Please check if I've got the distinction right). --M ASEM  (t) 23:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's implied that they were Trademarked domain names. Thanks for the suggestions! Squeekur 8:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article contains material closely paraphrased and near-verbatim from its sources: for example, "the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark, the complainant holds a valid and current national or regional registration" is nearly identical to "The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid and current national or regional registration". Also, the article's sources are all bare URLs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did try to check on close paraphrasing (looking for key phrases in the source documents) but that one must have slipped, my bad. --M ASEM (t) 06:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly three weeks since this was last reviewed but no edits have been made to remedy the problems highlighted. Are either of you still working on this or should I tag this as an abandoned nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)