Parties to litigate over Acorn.tv ownership.
Earlier this month I wrote about a very poor UDRP decision for Acorn.tv. The registrant lost the case.
I later talked to the registrant and he informed me he was moving forward with a lawsuit against complainant Acorn Media Group. This would explain why Acorn Media Group is now suing to try to get the domain name since the UDRP transfer was halted.
Right off the bat there seems to be a major problem with Acorn Media Group’s lawsuit: it filed it in its home state of Maryland. When the company filed a UDRP it agreed to handle any disputes regarding the domain name in either the registrant’s location (New York) or the registrar’s (Seattle).
Intriguingly, I can’t find a single reference to the UDRP case in the lawsuit. Can you?
Louise says
Is that normal to find a reference to the UDPR in a lawsuit? They’re two different venues, right?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Louise – they are. But usually it will be referred to. Perhaps I’m thinking of when the respondent files for declaratory judgment to set aside the UDRP. But in this case the complainant won, so why wouldn’t they mention it?
Karen Bernstein says
This is what happens when regular lawyers are hired to do a tm specialist’s job with a focus on domain name disputes.
abc says
acorn is generic, dictionary word so I cannot understand why he lost it. Can anyone explain this to me, please ?
theo says
Karen, it was thought this was an easy case, the owner had hired an lawyer with expierence and to everyone’s suprise the panel member was taken over by an alien and ruled in favor of Acorn Media. So in my opinion it is not the lawyer but the panel member.
Anyways it’s now a federal court case.
I am glad the owner of acorn.tv is fighting back since this whole thing is complete and total BS.
John Berryhill says
“When the company filed a UDRP it agreed to handle any disputes regarding the domain name in either the registrant’s location (New York) or the registrar’s (Seattle).”
No, it didn’t. This is probably one of the most poorly understood provisions of the UDRP.
First off, what the Complainant agrees to under the UDRP is to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the either the registrar or the registrant, if a suit is filed in the chosen jurisdiction.
In agreeing to submit to the UDRP Mutual Jurisdiction, the Complainant does not lose the right to file an action in any other competent jurisdiction.
For example, Andrew, if you and I have a dispute, and I agree that I will submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Texas, it does not mean that I have agreed ONLY to the jurisdiction of Texas unless I also agreed to the exclusion of any other jurisdiction. If I can file a case in California, and there is jurisdiction over the case in California, I can do that too.
There is nothing in the UDRP which limits either party to litigate in any jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others.
Andrew Allemann says
Thanks for the clarification, John. So in Ville De Paris a lawsuit could have been brought in any number of locations, but Texas was valid because Paris agreed to it when it filed the UDRP. Correct?