Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Cassandra.co owner tries to hijack Cassandra.com domain name

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Company filed baseless cybersquatting dispute at WIPO.

A New York brand strategy company that uses the domain name Cassandra.co has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name Cassandra.com.

Deep Focus Inc. filed the complaint against Abstract Holdings International, a domain name investment firm.

Abstract acquired the domain name in 2012 as part of a 1,427 domain name portfolio. The portfolio included many personal names such as natalia.com, jodie.com, and gabriella.com.

Deep Focus tried to buy the domain for $2,500. Abstract countered with a $200,000 price. Deep Focus then filed the UDRP as a Plan B for acquiring the domain.

A three-member World Intellectual Property Organization ruled that Deep Focus, which was represented by the law firm Hayes, Scott, Bonino & Ellingson, LLP, filed the case in abuse of the UDRP cybersquatting policy:

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant has disclosed no reasonable grounds for believing that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant or its trademark THE CASSANDRA REPORT in mind or with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark. Nor, for the reasons set out above, has it disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. On the contrary, the Panel infers on balance that the Complainant commenced the current proceeding in the hope of acquiring the disputed domain name without paying the full price legitimately demanded by the Respondent for the sale of the disputed domain name. Noting also that the Complainant is legally represented in this proceeding, the Panel finds that that (sic) the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Domain name lawyer Zak Muscovitch represented Abstract Holdings International.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Illinois property tax appeal attorney guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Anastasia Poulopoulos filed a cybersquatting dispute in bad faith, panelist determines.

The owner of Appealmytaxes.BIZ, which offers a service to challenge property tax assessments in Illinois, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in an attempt to get the domain name Appealmytaxes.COM.

Anastasia Poulopoulos filed the case with National Arbitration Forum arguing that the owner of AppealMyTaxes.com was cybersquatting. The owner of AppealMyTaxes.com registered the domain name before Poulopoulos registered the matching .biz. Poulopoulous subsequently registered a figurative mark made up mostly of text that reads “WWW.APPEALMYTAXES.BIZ OUR ONLY BIZNESS IS LOWERING YOUR REAL ESTATE TAXES”.

Not surprisingly, the panel didn’t find that this trademark was confusingly similar to the domain name AppealMyTaxes.com. It also found that the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith, which was the reason panelist David L. Kreider determined that Poulopoulos had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

It appears to the Panel that the Complainant became aware of the Respondent’s registration on May 12, 2008 of the DDN , and within weeks, acted to register her own “appealmytaxes.biz” domain name and file an application with the USPTO on June 23, 2008 to register the trademark WWW.APPEALMYTAXES.BIZ OUR ONLY BIZNESS IS LOWERING YOUR REAL ESTATE TAXES, with the intention of competing in the same professional services business as the Respondent had launched, or at that time, appeared to be preparing to launch.

The Panel concludes that the Complainant instituted these UDRP proceedings knowing that the Respondent was prior in time in registering the DDN and that the Complainant could not possibly establish the element of bad faith registration by the Respondent, which is required under the Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Mugshots.com defendants face arraignment later this month

by — Policy & Law 11 Comments

Defendants are due in Los Angeles courtroom on June 29 for arraignment.

Sahar Sarid’s mugshot after being arrested in Florida. He faces arraignment in California later this month.

The defendants in a criminal case against Mugshots.com’s owners face arraignment on June 29, according to the Superior Court of California website.

Domain investor Sahar Sarid is among the four people named in the complaint. He faced extradition to California to face the charges brought by the Attorney General there. The extradition hearing in Florida was dropped, apparently after Sarid turned himself in in California.

Sarid faces 51 counts including extortion, money laundering, and identity theft. The Attorney General alleges that he and the other defendants extorted people by charging them to have their mugshot and arrest records removed from the website in violation of the law.

The Mugshots.com website does not currently resolve.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Proeza, S.A. nailed for reverse domain name hijacking for failure to disclose

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

In a common occurence, company fails to disclose prior corresondence and misleads panel.

Here’s a common pattern in cybersquatting disputes under the UDRP:

A company reaches out to the domain name owner in an effort to either buy the domain or coerce the domain owner into transferring it on the threat of legal action. The domain owner responds and explains why he or she is not cybersquatting, and the complainant lets the matter lie. Then, out of the blue many years later, the complainant files a UDRP and doesn’t mention the prior correspondence between the parties.

Sometimes this is because the people responsible for filing the case weren’t knowledgeable about the prior attempts. Sometimes they were and thought they could slip it by.

In fact, some companies leave out key information or even try to mislead a panel with the hopes that the domain owner won’t respond, so no one will call it on its malfeasance and the domain will be transferred.

That’s what appears to have been the goal in a case Mexican company Proeza, S.A. filed against the French owner of Proeza.com. Click here to continue reading…

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

MMX completes .XXX ICM acquisition after ICANN approval

by — Services 0 Comments

ICANN gives nod to adult domain name ownership change.

Domain name overseer ICANN has approved the transfer of the .xxx, .porn, .adult and .sex top level domain names to Minds + Machines (MMX). As a result, MMX (London AIM: MMX) is completing its acquisition of ICM Registry, which controlled the domain names.

MMX paid $10.0 million cash, but the majority of the acquisition is being paid with 225 million shares in the company. At the time of the original acquisition announcement, those shares had a value of $31 million. They are now worth closer to $20 million, which is not surprising given the dilution that will occur with the share issuances. The shares will be issued over time and they have lock-in periods.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email