Company demands ownership of Sex.com to settle claims of trademark and copyright infringement.
Sex.com is one of the most valuable and storied domain names of all time. A battle over its ownership has resulted in multiple lawsuits, a fugitive hunt and millions of dollars in transactions.
The domain name most recently sold for $13 million in 2010.
Now a lawsuit is demanding transfer (pdf) of the ownership of the domain name based on copyright and trademark claims.
Hydentra Hlp Int. Limited, dba MetArt, has sued the owners of the site for allegedly hosting copies of its copyrighted material, as well as using its trademarks in meta tags to attract surfers through search engines.
Since Sex.com is set up as a Pinterest for Porn, hosting lots of porn images, its unsurprising that such a suit popped up.
Among Hydentra’s demands:
That Defendants be ordered to transfer the domain Sex.com, and all similar domains held by Defendants found in discovery, such as misspellings of the enumerated domains, domains held by Defendants linked to www.sex.com, and the content therein to Plaintiff.
Clover Holdings Limited, one of the defendants, bought the domain name in 2010. But the ownership of Clover Holdings has remained a mystery, with interviews not identifying the people behind the site. The lawsuit alleges that Maximum Apps Inc., a Canadian company, “owns and operates Sex.com” in conjunction with the other defendants. Frédéric Valiquette is a director of that company.
Acro says
Remarkable demonstration of inventive lawyership. They might as well sue Pinterest, then again the violations there aren’t as evident.
Andrew Allemann says
The meta tags were something only the company could change.
Acro says
That’s what the DMCA is for. This lawsuit is after the domain.
Nate G says
The DMCA has nothing to do with Trademark Law.
Acro says
“allegedly hosting copies of its copyrighted material” <– read this.
Andrew Allemann says
Acro, his comment was because you responded to my comment about the trademarks in meta tags, which isn’t a copyright issue. It’s trademark.
Domainer Extraordinaire says
I could see possible monetary damages and if the defendant doesn’t pay then they try to go after sex.com. They are putting the cart before the horse.
George Kirikos says
I noticed that last night, and thought it silly.
By that “logic”, next time someone spams me using a Gmailaddress, I’d be entitled to have the Gmail.com domain name taken away from Google and given to me……
John Berryhill says
Pretty much. “Transfer the domain name” is a remedy for cybersquatting under 15 USC 1125(d). The suit doesn’t even allege that.
Acro says
Ran out of room for nested quotes, so I’m continuing here.
It’s clear their claims are based on the use of potential copyright violations, e.g. images and videos, provided by users.
User submitted content shifts the blame away from the host (Sex.com) and requires the use of DMCA as a method of removing infringing content.
I would not be surprised if there were some prior underlying issues with DMCA enforcement, however.
Secondly, the references to meta tags with trademark keywords make the lawsuit filer appear uneducated.
Meta tags do not offer any of the SEO benefits they once did, as Google ignores meta tags and focuses on contextual content.
Since there are very few words but plenty of visuals, even that claim is weak. Search for e.g. “Metart video” in Google and you’ll find absolutely no links to Sex .com in the first 3 pages.
Andrew Allemann says
If you read the suit you’ll see that they submitted a DMCA, but they allege not all of the infringing material was removed.
They have several claims, ranging from the meta tags to the coyrighted content.
Acro says
Yes, read it, and the reference to meta tags is silly, to be honest. They don’t enhance content visibility in search engines (Google). I’m viewing this as an attempt to grab the domain, a very creative one.
Spencer says
Isnt there a safe harbor provision for copyright/trademark violations by 3rd parties???????????????????????????????????
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/protection-infringing-material-posted-oth
Acro says
I’ll have to assume the owners of Sex .com are not based in the US, therefore not bound to the DMCA.
That would affect a lot of parameters in this case, including partial or no response to DMCA claims.
David Michaels says
I don’t see the legal basis for an order requiring the Defendants to transfer the domain Sex.com, and all similar domains held by Defendants. The usual remedy is damages and an injunction, if warranted. The order requested seems arbitrary. Why stop there? How about an order for all of the defendants’ domains? How about all of the defendants’ other property too?
Yes, this claim is a pre-text to hijack the defendants’ very valuable domain names. Maybe Hydentra’s agents were the ones posting or pinning the infringing material. I hope that the claim dies on summary judgment.
Michaels Stores Procurement Company (the corp holding all of the IP for Michaels Stores Inc.) is trying to make the same type of claim for michaels.ca, when a CDRP proceeding would clearly fail.
jon says
This is nothing more than a pathethic obvious attempt to hijack and
take ownership of the domain name likely because it is so widely
known about and obviously so valueable.
The lawsuit will go absolutely no where as long as the defendant does not reside in the United States. Otherwise as stupid as it sounds, there would
exist the possibilty that the courts in the U.S could actually order transfer
under cybersquatted laws that are seldomly used.
To me this highlights why no serious domainer should reside in the U.S.
or ever use registries based inside of the United States for anything.
Especially Questionable Content.
Ryan Brown says
My thoughts exactly.
jon says
This is nothing more than a pathethic obvious attempt to hijack and
take ownership of the domain name likely because it is so widely
known about and obviously so valueable.
The lawsuit will go absolutely no where as long as the defendant does
not reside in the United States. Otherwise as stupid as it sounds, there
exists the possibilty that the courts in the U.S could actually order
transfer based on a judgement under cybersquatting laws that are
seldomly used.
To me this highlights why no serious domainer should reside in the
U.S. or ever use registries based inside of the United States for
anything. Especially content that is questionable.