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.
Rick Latona says
This may be your best post ever.
Rob Sequin says
If she filed against the domain name, how does a domain name defend itself?
I don’t understand.
the ACPA provides that if you cannot get service on the Registrant (for whatever reason) you can still get a judgment to get the RES (domain name), but you cannot get damages or attorneys fees.
Nice title — BULLSH*T ruling by ACPA.
Eventually, we’ll have start-up companies going after (and getting) generic domains that have been registered for years, but that aren’t used for any meaningful commercial purposes…just wait.
“Domainers” ARE squatters in the eyes of 95% of the public and the very thin line that separates these two distinctions is in the process of being erased completely with rulings like this.
Barry Lebovitz says
Because cyber-squatters are fat? Is THAT what this is about?
John Berryhill says
Ruger, how, in your mind, is the name “Cathie Jung” – apparently well known to corset fanciers – being used by a corset maker to promote his business without her consent, a “generic” domain?
John Berryhill says
Something is really odd about a record for:
“The Smallest Waist on a Living Person”
What’s the record for a dead person?
Bad example; however, domaining as we know it will be gone in ten years. Gone. Anyone with deep enough pockets will make your life miserable just to get their hands on your domain.
Who the hell made you such an expert on predicting the future of domains?
I could go into great detail as to what I do for a living, what I’ve done for a living, and specific examples of ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye…but I won’t.
Just look at the world around you, brother…as a very talented bard once crooned, “Times are a changin’…”
Perhaps the concept here is that the litigant sought certain “declarations” from the court. Or some type of “equitable relief” perhaps. You cant start an action against a domain. That makes no sense.
Similarly, people are forever posting notices at the bottom of a website claiming that “website.com” or some made up fictitious business name owns the copyright. Makes no sense. Only a person or an an entity can own property.
John Berryhil says
“You cant start an action against a domain.”
Yes you can. Look up the meaning of “in rem”.
The ACPA specifically authorizes that type of action in which, yes, the domain name is the defendant. The actual caption of the case is Cathie Jung v Cathiejung.com.
A party may have standing to defend in such an action based on an interest in the property. For example, you might find an action like “US Customs Service v 50 Cases of Rum” in a seizure proceeding. The importer whose rum it is may appear to contest the allegation that, say, import duties were or were not paid.
“ongoing cases that are just out of reach of the public eye”
Ongoing cases are matters of public record and there are those whose business it is, specifically, to keep an eye on them. Howard is one of those people, so this kind of argument by “I know stuff that you don’t know” just doesn’t wash.
It’s absolutely clear that the domain registrant here was using someone else’s reputation in a specific area to profit from precisely that reputation. If you read the other filings she lost out on media inquiries from folks who thought it was her website. The website even identified itself as being hers. This is not some sort of “edge case” of debatable merit on some fine point of law. I will grant you that her claim to fame is unusual, but that’s how she’s made a living, and it is that very peculiarity that renders it clear that the domain registrant was a lowlife scumbag, to use the technically precise term.
@Ruger “Domainers ARE squatters….”
when they own a domain like cathiejung.com
without having the permission to own it.
THAT is 100% cypersquatting!
The domain owner didnt show up to defend themselves.
A women whose only claim to fame is having some crazy Guinness record would have lost if the domain owner had fought this. Always show up for the fight.
Andrew Allemann says
@ rob – fat chance.