Company goes after domain name registered before its brand even existed.
Let’s hope that LiveOne Group, a streaming media company, merely got some bad legal advice on this one.
It just lost a UDRP for LiveOne.com.
The current registrant picked it up in 2007, at least a few years before LiveOne Group came to market. So LiveOne Group had no chance of winning.
The owner of LiveOne.com was represented by Ari Goldberger.
LiveOne Group is now 0-for-2 in UDRPs with its second loss in as many months.
Last month it lost a UDRP for CrowdSurfing.com.
In that case the current owner bought the domain after LiveOne was in existence. At about the same time as the respondent bought it, LiveOne had been trying to negotiate to buy the domain — but it was too late.
So LiveOne tried to buy the domain from the respondent for what he paid for it. Not surprisingly, the respondent wanted more.
When those talks broke down LiveOne filed the UDRP.
The panel found in favor of the owner of CrowdSurfing.com, saying it wasn’t proven that he lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
This was despite the owner of the domain never responding to the UDRP. Frankly, LiveOne really did itself in by including a declaration about how it wanted to buy the domain but couldn’t.
LiveOne Group was represented by Illinois intellectual property attorney Matthew D. Kellam in both proceedings.
For now, LiveOne Group will have to use its LiveOneGroup.com domain name.
…until if figures out you actually have to pay for domain names other people rightfully own.
David says
The complaint is absolutely stupid and bossy.But I just want to know what the case number is. I am interested to know the detail.
Frantisek Mrazek says
Matthew D. Kellam is a MORON
Ken says
Do you know matt kellam? Im trying to figure out if this the same attorney I ran across a few years ago. Can you describe him? Picture?
Ron says
Wow, if this isn’t theft I am not sure what is… They didn’t learn their lesson, and they continue to do it, they need to be made an example of.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Ron – the cases were both filed before they got the first answer back, but I suspect it won’t happen again.
horinek says
The owner of that domain wouldn’t pay more than $500 for it. Neither perhaps would anyone else except the complainant.
Doesn’t seem surprising that complainant was a little aggrieved at being asked to stump up $50k.
David says
@Horinek The complaint seems set a trap to take the domain by the rules of UDRP like many cases filed in history. Business is business, which means the price is leverage between supply and demand. The complaint filed to UDRP because he didn’t want to negotiate with the owner at all. Now his day-dream is broken, so how’s going on of him?
Meyer says
I guess the asking price just doubled???
Rob says
@meyer
or the value just dropped significantly! as also a potential buyer of a domain (for personal use only) i can tell you that buyers can play hard ball just as much as sellers – if they say “stuff you” and turn around and never want the domain again then you may have just kissed goodbye to a decent and possibly FAIR sale. greed is not always good.
Ron says
You could put liveone.com in any drop auction today and it would sell for over 1k in a heartbeat.
Steve says
Complainant owned the trademark and filed to own the domain of their trademark. That seems like a pretty good argument to me (and a very sensible business move). Or are we saying that trademark rights don’t matter?