Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Here’s Del Monte’s WEIRD lawsuit to overturn .delmonte decision

    1. BY - Aug 16, 2013
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Del Monte International uses cybersquatting and UDRP rules in attempt to overturn .delmonte objection.

    Yesterday I wrote about Del Monte International (DMI) Gmbh’s lawsuit against Del Monte Corporation (DMC) after the latter won its objection to the former’s application for the .delmonte top level domain.

    The court has now published the complaint (pdf).

    On the surface, I understand the complaint. DMI is trying to argue that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel made the wrong decision. But how DMI positions the complaint is, well, weird.

    It appears that DMI took a lawsuit that’s filed when someone loses a UDRP and wants it overturned and just changed it to read “Legal Rights Objection”.

    The complaint for declaratory relief asks the court to say that DMI is not in violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by seeking to register the TLD .delmonte (huh?) and to order DMC to withdraw its (already closed) Legal Rights Objection against DMI.

    DMI then goes on to claim the U.S. District Court in Central District of California has jurisdiction over the case using UDRP’s “mutual jurisdiction” guidelines.

    In a UDRP, the complainant has to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of either the domain owner’s location or his/her registrar, should the respondent file suit as a result of case. The complainant elects one of the jurisdictions when it files the case.

    So DMI said that WIPO has stated that UDRP rules apply to new gTLDs (hmmm) and that “jurisdiction is proper in this court, because the Registrar with whom the Application was filed, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), is located in Marina del Rey, California…”

    See what I mean? Weird. Creativity points at a minimum.

    The rest of the complaint describes why DMI believes why the WIPO panel decision was “manifestly erroneous”.

    It may be right, although filing a lawsuit may not overturn the objection.

1 Comment
  • John Berryhill says:

    August 16, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    That complaint is beyond weird. It is a rare mix of lazy and stupid. Someone took a post-UDRP complaint as a template, which was a silly thing to do in the first place, and left what they apparently thought was some “boilerplate language” in it. The attorney(s) who wrote it and/or signed it,should be taken to the woodshed.

    What on God’s green earth do these circumstances have to do with asking for declaratory relief under 15 usc 1125(d) (the ACPA), the UDRP, and other provisions and facts which decorate this outstanding piece of legal malpractice?

    No competent attorney could have signed that complaint in good faith under FRCP 11. Not only that, but Winston P. Hsiao apparently signed a partner’s name to it (which is the reason for the “wph” notation on the signature line). No, Mr. Hsiao, you don’t sign a pleading for someone else.

    Outstandingly craptastic incompetence from Skadden Arps. Go ahead and sue me.

Leave a Reply