Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "anticybersquatting consumer protection act"

  • NextDoor.com sues owner of NextDoor.cm

    1. BY - Nov 08, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    NextDoor.cm owner has claimed NextDoor.com stole his business idea.

    Neighborhood social networking site NextDoor.com has sued the owner of NextDoor.cm — but this isn’t a simple allegation of cybersquatting.

    The company filed the suit (pdf) in U.S. District Court in San Francisco to put an end to what it says are baseless claims that NextDoor.com stole its business idea from defendant Raj Abhyanker.

    You can read some details about Abhyanker’s previous claims here.

    The suit alleges that on the day after NextDoor.com publicly launched, Abhyanker sent an email to NextDoor.com’s co-founder, in which he expressed an interest in working with and being a co-founder of the company. NextDoor.com didn’t respond.

    On November 10, 2011, Abhyanker sued NextDoor.com, claiming in part that he came up with the idea for a local social networking service in 2005. Abhyanker’s previous business name, under which he planned to launch the service, was FatDoor.

    In December 2011 Abhyanker applied for a trademark registration for “NextDoor”. NextDoor alleges he also registered the domain name Nextdoor.cm at the same time, along with NextLawn.com and NextYard.com

    He also filed two notices of opposition against NextDoor.com’s own trademark applications, according to the lawsuit.

    He later sent a notice to NextDoor claiming its use of NextDoor.com violated the anticybersquatting consumer protection act and also threatened filing a UDRP.

    So NextDoor.com is taking the proactive approach now. It’s asking the court for declaratory relief, and also throwing in its own charge of cybersquatting for Abhyanker’s registration of NextDoor.cm.

    With he potential for a $100,000 judgment for cybersquatting, NextDoor hopes to put an end to Abhyanker’s claims.

  • Nordstrom sues flash sales site NoMoreRack

    1. BY - Oct 22, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 8 Comments

    Retailer claims flash sales site is infringing its marks.

    NoMoreRack.comRetailing giant Nordstrom has sued flash sales site NoMoreRack.com, claiming the site’s brand and domain name infringe its trademarks (pdf).

    Nordstrom owns 110 “The Rack” stores, which are essentially its outlet stores. It has trademarks for “Rack” and “The Rack”.

    NoMoreRack.com is a flash sales site, offering limited time closeout sales. According to this article, it generated $46 million in revenue the first half of 2012.

    Nordstrom says it became aware of the site earlier this year and put the company on notice of its alleged infringement.

    The company alleges that NoMoreRack.com named its business to take advantage of Nordstrom’s famous mark:

    Nordstrom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendants knew when they began to operate the NoMoreRack Site that Nordstrom had invested over four decades of time, effort and money into developing in the Rack Marks a reputation for excellent customer service and quality discount merchandise. NoMoreRack’s business did not have a brand identity that could possibly attract such high levels of customer goodwill and name association. Thus, rather than develop goodwill in independently created trademarks, NoMoreRack simply misappropriated The Rack’s hard-won reputation.

    Nordstrom is suing for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and violation of the anticybersquatting consumer protection act. Among its demands is that the defendant’s NoMoreRack.com and FriendRack.com domain names be transferred to Nordstrom.

  • Woman With World’s Smallest Waist Wins Cybersquatting Lawsuit

    1. BY - Jul 30, 2010
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 16 Comments

    A domain name is a terrible thing to waist.

    Cathie Jung, who is in the Guinness Book of World Records as having “The Smallest Waist on a Living Person” at 15 inches, has won rights to the domain name CathieJung.com.

    Jung filed an Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act en rem (meaning it was against the domain name and not the registrant) case back in December 2009. Jung claimed that the domain name was registered by a corset designer. Indeed, it appears the site was used to send traffic to the registrant’s membership-based corset site.

    The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia because .com registry VeriSign is located there. The judge handed down a default judgment this month that ordered the domain name to be handed back to Jung.

    Jung was represented by Stephen Sturgeon.