Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "lawsuits"

  • HugeDomains sues medical group to keep domain and claims RDNH

    1. BY - Apr 03, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 3 Comments

    HugeDomains claims Austin medical group provided false statements in UDRP.

    A couple weeks ago I wrote about a UDRP for and how I thought the panel got it wrong.

    Now HugeDomains, which was on the losing end of the case, has filed suit to halt the transfer and is asking to recover damages under Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

    The suit was filed against Austin Pain Associates in U.S. District Court in Colorado yesterday.

    In the suit, HugeDomains alleges that Austin Pain Associates “knowingly provided the UDRP panel with materially false, incomplete, and misleading information in an effort hijack the domain name from HugeDomains.”

    Filing the lawsuit has the effect of halting the domain name transfer to Austin Pain Associates (APA). APA submitted to the Colorado court’s personal jurisdiction when it filed the UDRP.

    You can read the full lawsuit here (pdf).

  • Wanna lawsuit? WannaDo battles WannaDo in court, claims cybersquatting

    1. BY - Jun 12, 2013
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    App creator sues event ticketing site over Wannado name and domain name.

    Two businesses offer relatively similar services at a about the same time and use the same name: WannaDo. One secures the best domain name for the service.

    Wanna bet that results in a lawsuit? Yep.

    Wannado, Inc. has sued The Active Network, Inc over its use of the Wannado name and

    The plaintiff is a Tennessee corporation that offers an app on the iTunes store. The Wannado app provides information about local events and is currently limited to Nashville.

    The defendant is a Delaware corporation that appears to be based in San Diego but has offices all over the world, including in Nashville.

    The Active Network launched an event ticketing service on in February of this year after acquiring the domain name. Now if you search for “Wannado” on Google, Active Network’s site comes up first. The plaintiff’s domain name is the inferior

    Wannado, Inc. says that The Active Network is violating its federally registered Wannado trademark and is cybersquatting on the domain name.

    You can read the lawsuit here (pdf).

  • California furniture seller files suit over

    1. BY - Apr 08, 2013
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Second lawsuit filed after UDRP decision.

    Urban HomeThe legal expenses are mounting on this one.

    Urban Home, the California furniture maker that filed a UDRP on, has now filed a federal lawsuit in California to try to get the domain name.

    The suit is in response to’s owner, Technology Online, filing suit in Nevada to halt the transfer of the domain name.

    The WIPO panel found in favor of Urban Home. Technology Online decided to sue to stop the transfer.

    I’m not sure what Urban Home’s angle for filing in California is. Although it may be an acceptable jurisdiction, it still agreed to be subject to the Nevada jurisdiction when it filed the UDRP.

    There are a number of facts that need to be determined in this case. One is when Technology Online acquired the domain. Another is how strong Urban Home’s trademark is. Its suit claims it has “vigilantly policed and protected its rights and interests in and to the URBAN HOME trademark…” Yet it didn’t file for a trademark on the term until 2011 and didn’t go after the domain until December 2012.

    Urban Home’s web address is, so it’s no wonder it wants the better domain.

  • University of Central Florida sues liquor store that owns

    1. BY - Mar 19, 2013
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    University of Central Florida takes issue with liquor store’s marketing and domain name.

    The page that used to be at on December 23, 2012.

    The page that used to be at on December 23, 2012.

    The University of Central Florida has sued a local liquor store that bills itself as “Your Official UCF Liquor Store”.

    Pat’s Liquor, which is located about a mile from UCF’s Orlando campus, has been using the domain name and pitching itself as the official local store of the university.

    Obviously, “official liquor store” and “university” don’t go well together.

    The University also takes issue with the company’s Facebook page at

    UCF says it sent multiple cease & desist letters to the store but did not receive a response. So it filed its lawsuit (pdf) for trademark dilution, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and misleading advertising in U.S. District Court in Orlando yesterday.

    Among the university’s requests are that Pat’s Liquor transfer the domain name into its control and take down the Facebook page.

    As of this morning, resolves to a page saying it is offline for maintenance.

  • Citigroup sues to get, a domain it won in UDRP

    1. BY - Dec 06, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 23 Comments

    South Korean court blocked transfer of domain after UDRP; Citi files suit in the United States.

    Last September a National Arbitration Forum panel ruled that Citigroup should get the domain name [Update: the court entered a default judgment for Citigroup and the domain has been transferred.]

    But the owner of the domain name sued in South Korea court to block the transfer.

    Now Citigroup has filed an in rem action against the domain name in U.S. court (pdf).

    In its suit, Citigroup claims:

    …the South Korean court did not adjudicate Plaintiff’s rights under U.S. law or the U.S. Trademark Act, namely the ACPA. As a result, the South Korean court’s rulings are not relevant to Plaintiff’s above-captioned in rem Complaint seeking injunctive relief under the ACPA.

    Here’s what makes this interesting to me.

    When Citigroup filed its UDRP against the owner of, it most likely agreed to jurisdiction in South Korea should the respondent in the case file a lawsuit over the domain name. Now the company is upset over what that court ruled because it wasn’t based on U.S. law, so it’s filing an in rem action in the U.S.

    Perhaps there’s more legal nuance to this, and I welcome any attorneys to chime in.