MyVault.com owner fights back against UDRP complainant.
[Update: the complainant withdrew the case.] Over the holidays I noticed a UDRP was filed against MyVault.com at National Arbitration Forum.
I was immediately curious as to the backstory on this given how this domain seems generic (and a good domain at that). Since National Arbitration Forum doesn’t publish the name of the complainant until a case is decided, I was left to guessing who filed the case.
But I’ve got the answer for you, as well as a glimpse into what it’s like to get hit with a UDRP on a domain name you registered nearly 12 years ago.
The domain is owned by Loren Stocker, a provider of toll free numbers and a domain investor.
The complainant is My Vault Services, LLC, which operates online at MyVaultStorage.com. It is owned by E-Insure Services, Inc., which owns the domain eInsurance.com and E-Insure.com.
Obviously MyVault.com is a superior name to MyVaultStorage.com. Stocker registered MyVault.com in 2000, which is why the complainant originally had to settle for less appealing domains such as my-vault.net and myvault.net.
While the company does have a trademark for “My Vault”, its first use in commerce date is after Stocker registered the domain. But in its complaint is argues it has common law rights to “My Vault” from its use dating back to 1997. Usually when you file a trademark application you try to claim a first use as far back as you can, so this is certainly interesting.
According to Stocker, the complainant filed an “Intent to Use” trademark application after registering My-Vault.net, which was after Stocker had registered MyVault.com.
You can read My Vault Services’ complaint here (pdf).
Stocker isn’t waiting around for a UDRP panel to determine the domain’s fate. He has sent a notice (pdf) to My Vault Services demanding that they withdraw the complaint. If not, he’s going to seek restitution including legal fees.
Sometimes complainants look at UDRP as a relatively safe crapshoot to go after a domain. If they lose, what’s the big deal? They’re just out a few thousand dollars.
But this isn’t always the case. I know of one domain investor who filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment after merely receiving a cease and desist letter. Win a UDRP case against Tucows? Expect to have to fight in court, and not be able to merely run away.
UDRP certainly has its place, and complainants shouldn’t worry about filing cases for obvious cybersquatting, which is what the policy was created for in the first place.
But if it’s not a clear cut case of cybersquatting…complainant be warned.
George Kirikos says
UDRP was intended as a shield, not a sword.
Matthew 26:52 says “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Andrew Allemann says
Update: I just found out the complainant withdrew the case.
Yury says
Very happy the owner has decided to fight for their domain name. Unfortunately fighting a UDRP can be costly and is a reason why so many complaints go unanswered and end up being transferred. Given these circumstances, if the Complainant does not withdraw the UDRP, I think Respondent should immediately file an action under the ACPA without wasting his time in UDRP. At least under the ACPA, he may be able to collect damages and attorney fees.
Yury says
That is great news