Featured Domains


Stanley Pace sues for alleged Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Pace sues after losing UDRP to dancewear company.

Stanley Pace, a Texas resident who has faced his fair share of UDRP complaints, lost another one last month. A three member UDRP panel ordered the domain name Yumiko.com transferred to dancewear company Yumiko, LLC.

He’s fighting back to halt the transfer and is asking for damages under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act for reverse domain name hijacking.

Pace filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas on December 30. This will halt the transfer of the domain name, and now Yumiko will find itself on the defensive.

Howard Neu, who represented Pace in the UDRP, is also representing him in the lawsuit.

Yumiko.com lawsuit

Dynadot Expired Auctions. Now offering installment payments. View auctions.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. Mike says

    Good that he is taking this to Court but personally I think that tactically it is better to issue proceedings as soon as a UDRP or other threat is made, or perhaps *immediately* the UDRP is issued (so you can use the Jurisidction clause to at least initially ground jurisdiction where you want it) . I have found when issued after the bad decision is made it is harder because you are fighting to reverse a decision , rather than when issuing simply keeping status quo it puts the boot on your foot and Complainant then is left with a decision to make, not you.

  2. thelegendaryjp says

    Let me get this straight but this seems to be an on going theme and the absolute bias in these replies claiming unfair decisions shows how childish we can be when bias.

    They have a trademark, he becomes registrant after that fact, we all know a new registrant is a new registrant and we are open to disputes (risk). He parks it, displays ads showing competitors, history of doing so….

    Your honor it’s not my fault it’s the parking company I used. Sure I have done this for a decade or so and with hundreds if not thousands of names and yes it is my umptenth dispute but I swear I didn’t know and trusted the parking company.

    Are there unfair decisions, absolutely, far too many but when will we start picking those to use as examples of injustice.

    There is nothing unfair about this decision imo.

    Maybe I am wrong maybe I can plead ignorance and get away with stuff in a court of law?

    • Andrew Allemann says

      I personally find it difficult to believe that the parking company promised no ads would show up on this domain that would infringe on a mark. I’m sure the parking company won’t want to be dragged into this.

      Stanley Pace’s history likely means he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in these rulings.

  3. Anon says


    They didn’t have the registered trademark until 2015 (five years after his registration in 2010), per USPTO.gov, so he could not have registered it in bad faith.

    If they felt entitled to a common law trademark by 2010, the domain name was dropped by its previous owner – a woman named YUMIKO Yamaguchi (!!!) – where were they when it dropped in 2010? They could have scooped it up. Stanley didn’t (see below). Why didn’t they make a $10,000 offer to Ms. Yumiko Yamaguchi before she allowed it to drop in 2010?

    Anyway, it looks like Chris Carter of Utah dodged a bullet when he picked the domain name up on the drop in February 2010 and sold it to Stanley Pace in August 2010. Poor old Stanley is the one stuck dealing with this prospective buyer with an overwhelming sense of entitlement. Good thing he has deep pockets. What if he were one of us instead?

    • thelegendaryjp says

      Perhaps I misread but they did have TM’s further back that contained the word, no? If it were I and I was a “new” registrant of a name like this I certainly would be sure it did not infringe or simply use it for email, search or simply for sale (still risky I know). I wish Stan all the best but some times we get caught with our pants down. jmo

    • thelegendaryjp says

      Forgot to mention, who is Chris Carter and why did Stan buy the name…you do not want to use either of those as examples.

      As far as the woman who owned it previous and why they did not buy from here, irrelevant.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: