Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Domain Owner Wins Expenses in Lawsuit

    1. BY - Oct 07, 2009
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 12 Comments

    Company sues UDRP complainant, wins, and judge orders complainant to pay expenses.

    Neon Network, LLC, has been awarded expenses after winning a default judgment against Aspis Liv Forsakrings in a domain dispute.

    Aspis filed a UDRP case with World Intellectual Property Organization last year to get the domain name Aspis.com, and it won. Aspis.com is a gripe site complaining about Aspis Liv Forsaking, an insurance company.

    Neon Network filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court on June 26, 2008, asking for declaratory judgment that it was not violating the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. On June 22, 2009, the judge issued a default judgment against Aspis. In July, the court ordered Aspis Liv Forsakrings to pay expenses to Neon Network. It’s not much — $1,547 — but it does show that judges will penalize companies that file dubious claims in arbitration.

    You can view the original lawsuit here, and the judgment here (pdfs).

12 Comments
  • Domain Owner Wins Expenses in Lawsuit – http://tinyurl.com/ydquxzo

  • Matthew S. Harris
    Knud Wallberg
    Corrupted crooked panelists

  • Domain Owner Wins Expenses in Lawsuit – Domain Name Wire http://ow.ly/tgwl

  • Anonymous Hero says:

    October 8, 2009 at 4:18 am

    (settings aside my opinions of gripe sites…free speech anyone? everyone!) it’s been a year since the WIPO instruction to transfer the site. Why is the site not been transfered? Was the transfer put on hold until the lawsuit was settled? Hopefuly the Streisand effect will kick in against Aspis.

  • John Berryhill says:

    October 9, 2009 at 9:57 am

    “Why is the site not been transfered? Was the transfer put on hold until the lawsuit was settled?”

    Read UDRP 4(k) –

    “We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel’s decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.”

    The suit was prepared and filed immediately upon notice of the UDRP decision.

  • Guess someone thought as you thought, tried it, and proved it worked, John. :)

  • Winning a “default judgment” means nothing, when it comes to making huzzah type claims about judges showing a “willingness” about anything.

  • @Zippy – true. Next challenge is to enforce the decision and collect…if ever.

  • Anonymous Hero says:

    October 13, 2009 at 4:11 am

    “The suit was prepared and filed immediately upon notice of the UDRP decision.”

    Thanks for clarifying JB.

Leave a Reply