Judge says it looked like a “set up”.
Just one day after appearing in court and having the judge deny a motion for preliminary injunction, Office Space Solutions has dismissed a cybersquatting lawsuit over the domain name WorkBetter.com.
The company, which is launching a new business called Work Better, filed the case last month in an effort to get the domain name from Jason Kneen, who registered the domain name in 1999.
Today, attorney Roman Popov of The Bostany Law Firm filed to voluntarily dismiss the case:
Although the notice of dismissal is predicated on the idea that the court likely wouldn’t have found jurisdiction, my understanding is the judge gave a blistering assessment of the case in open court yesterday.
I’m waiting on the full transcript, but Judge Lewis Kaplan said the situation behind the case looked like a “set up”. The judge also said there are good cybersquatting cases and bad ones, and this one looks like a bad one.
I’ll update when I get a transcript.
Given the judges comments and the ridiculous claims made in the lawsuit, I’m not surprised the plaintiffs dropped the case.
For now, the lawsuit is dismissed. It remains to be seen what happens from here.
John says
I hope they get hit with a counter suit for costs from this nonsense suit they brought.
couponpages says
Definitely. There needs to be some penalty for being a bully.
C.S. Watch says
Su-perb. And superb real-time reportage from this site–
Hopefully, we’ll now see the long-overdue formal disavowal from ICANN, WIPO, NAF, et. al, of the embarrassing “renewal-as-a-registration” line (aka “retroactive bad faith” aka “the unitary approach to bad faith”).
It is counter to 1) the clear language of the UDRP Policy, 2) the WIPO Overview 2.0, 3) the fundamental purpose of TM law, 4) the Congressional intent behind ACPA and the UDRP, 5) ICANN’s mandate, and 6) public policy.
Panelist Richard G. Lyon joked that these “rogue” decisions encouraged compromise. No one is laughing. What is a “rogue” decision but a refusal to apply law to facts.
Stan says
This is the only substantive analysis here that touches upon the very issue that was before the judge. Whether the renewal of a domain that was not being used amounted to cybersquatting because it was renewed after a trademark was registered.
Many judges say yes and that’s why the case was probably brought. The lawyers cannot be criticized because a judge was assigned to this case that disagreed with some other judges and followed courts that believe that a domain can be held forever.
This philosophy some judges feel is counter to the American economy which should permit small business owners and mom and pops even from starting a business around a domain that someone is squatting on and not using without paying a kickback to that squatter sometimes 100 times what the squatter paid for the domain.
Acro says
The domain just entered six figure territory.
Andrea Paladini says
They just tried to scare the guy with a groundless lawsuit which also clearly lacks jurisdiction … predictable tactics …
Agree with Acro, now if they wanna buy the price will also include legal expenses + more … lol 😀
C.S. Watch says
@Acro is definitely right, a $100,000 add-on (the RDNH court awarded penalty) is plenty common. Someone less lazy should poll the Respondents from the ‘terminated, withdrawn, or complaint denied’ results to see how many either refused to sell afterwards or released the Kraken.
rak says
The issue is why did the law firm take on a case that could expose the plaintiff to a number of issues. I don’t know if Roman Popov was the lead attorney on this case, but it looks like he has a grand total of five months of experience as an attorney, according to LinkedIn. Does the plaintiff have a case against the law firm?
Bystander says
It was Roman Popov of The Bostany Law Firm who filed the case on the 24th June 2015 and it was Roman Popov who filed to voluntarily dismiss the case on the 8th July 2015 .
Roman Popov graduated from New York Law School only last year and has worked for The Bostany Law Firm for just 5 months yet he felt sufficiently emboldened to launch this ill-conceived case in a court which had no jurisdiction.
This highly controversial case has now become so high profile and has generated much attention and comment. It will be acutely embarrassing for John P. Bostany’s law firm, The Bostany Law Firm but especially for Roman Popov who submitted the case and it will not be career-enhancing when and if he should move on as it will forever remain on google searches.
John Berryhill says
Mr. Popov is a fine young man with a bright future ahead of him. People are entitled to hire lawyers to advance their interests.
accent says
“a fine young man with a bright future ahead of him”
That “fine young man” just put a completely innocent domain owner through two weeks of hell and likely cost him thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.
The Judge made it clear, this case was not advancing any LEGITIMATE interest. If Mr Popov is truly a “fine young man” he would admit his mistake and compensate Mr Kneen fully.
I believe there is zero chance of that. And that disgusts me.
Lawyers are always looking to redress harm caused by others, why does the harm they cause get ignored?
mmj says
Why on earth are you putting the blame for this on the lawyer rather than the person who hired the lawyer?
That’s now how it works. People hire lawyers to do shitty things. The lawyers do their job, which is to help their client as well as they can, even if the case seems unlikely to proceed.
Karen Bernstein says
Mr. Popov is a junior associate who was supervised by Mr. Bostany who argued the case for plaintiff at the hearing. I know this because I was there with Dr. Berryhill.
Adams Rib says
Defendant Jason Kneen suffers distress and legal costs defending this case.
Unless The Bostany Law Firm operates on a no-win-no-fee basis (unlikely) they would have charged their client the Plaintiff, Harsh Mehta of Office Space Solution Inc., to submit a case which had no chance of succeeding because it was submitted to a District court which had no jurisdiction. One wonders if Roman Popov or John P. Bostany advised their client of this in advance of submitting the case?
So for both Defendant (even though he gets to keep his domain name) and Plaintiff it is “Lose/Lose” but The Bostany Law Firm probably picked up some fees from their client.
Nice work if you can get it!
C.S. Watch says
I hope ‘John Bostany, Fashion Lawyer,’ loses some sleep over the stain he’s left on this kid’s career. Abusive lawsuits and UDRPs should be recognized as dangerous ground for unethical attorneys. Until registrants have a way to recoup the 5-10K in legal fees it costs to respond to these filings, the only recourse and reform push available to them is to publish the attorneys’ names and the details of the abusive filing online. Sometimes at the disputed domain itself. RDNH is a violation of Federal law—what kind of attorney talks these clients into burning themselves and the law firm?