Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "lawsuits"

  • Company pays $25k to resolve lawsuit stemming from UDRP

    1. BY - Sep 30, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 9 Comments

    Domain name owner that sued after losing UDRP settles for $25,000 (not including the domain).

    Companies that file long shot UDRPs with the hope of scoring a great domain name, take note.

    An Austin company has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a lawsuit filed against it after it initiated a UDRP case.

    And the company won its UDRP. Click to continue reading…

  • UDRPsearch owner sues after being threatened with UDRP

    1. BY - Jun 20, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 9 Comments

    Virtual Point sues after person threatens UDRP if it doesn’t sell a domain for $1,000.

    The owner of UDRP database site UDRPSearch.com has filed a federal lawsuit (pdf) after being threatened with a UDRP.

    Virtual Point Inc filed the lawsuit after an individual tried to buy the domain name ALFinancial.com and allegedly threatened to file a UDRP if Virtual Point did not agree to a low price.

    According to the filing, Joseph Rosenzweig contacted the plaintiff about acquiring the domain name. Rosenzweig offered $500 for the domain. Virtual Point countered with an $8,000 ask. Rosenzweig then responded with a $1,000 offer and “informed Plaintiff that his principal had “quite a bit of evidence” that the Domain Name was being squatted-on” by Plaintiff and that his principal wanted to “avoid going the UDRP route, which would cost about
    $1,000 anyway.”

    Virtual Point filed the lawsuit to head off a UDRP. It’s asking for more than just the usual Declaratory Judgment. It’s also claiming wire fraud (because the defendant allegedly made false statements over email to force the plaintiff to sell the domain), fraudulent representation and unfair competition.

    The suit names Rosenzweig and doe defendants. Virtual Point is represented by Mike Rodenbaugh.

  • Company sues to overturn UDRP decision

    1. BY - May 14, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 4 Comments

    Company turns to courts (again) to try to overturn adverse UDRP ruling.

    Technology Online, LLC has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nevada to overturn a UDRP against the domain name Jeffers.com.

    Veterinarian supply company Jeffers, Inc. filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization earlier this year and won the case.

    Technology Online argues that the panelist in that case erred because she considered the date Technology Online acquired the domain name (2012) rather than when it was first registered (1996) when determining registration in bad faith. Since Jeffers didn’t get a registered trademark until 1997, Technology Online argues the domain name wasn’t registered in bad faith.

    This argument ignores years of precedent in UDRP, in which the date the current registrant acquired the domain name counts as the registration date.

    It also ignores the actual reasoning of the panelist in the UDRP case. Although Jeffers didn’t register a trademark until 1997, it claimed a first use date of 1976. The panelist said this wasn’t contested by Technology Online and thus Jeffers.com was registered well after the name was used. (The original case doesn’t address if Jeffers had trademark rights dating to 1976, however.)

    There may be other legitimate reasons Technology Online should dispute the outcome, but it doesn’t do a good job of laying them out in the case.

    Jeffers.com was part of the Mailbank portfolio (later Net Identity) acquired by Tucows. People with the last name Jeffers could get free @jeffers.com email addresses at the domain.

    The lawsuit includes an interesting communication from someone who used three free email addresses and was frustrated that Tucows terminated the service a few years ago with little notice. (That’s a good warning to anyone using free email on a domain that could be sold in the future).

    Technology Online says it planned to bring back the free email service as a legitimate use of the domain name, but its two year delay in doing so will certainly be questioned.

    This isn’t the first time Technology Online has turned to the courts after losing a UDRP. The Nevada company previously sued after losing a UDRP for UrbanHome.com.

    Court filing – PDF (6MB)

  • 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 AustinPain.com 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 austinpain.com 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 Wannado.com.

    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 Wannado.com in February of this year after acquiring the Wannado.com 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 WannadoLocal.com.

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

    You can read the lawsuit here (pdf).