CryptoSecurities.com was registered in 2013 and the plaintiff’s business was just created this year.
A law firm that created a business on the domain name CryptoSecurities.exchange has filed a lawsuit (pdf) against the owner of the CryptoSecurities.com domain name.
In the suit, plaintiff Castro & Co claims to have “a federal trademark registration, no. 87756075, for the mark CRYPTOSECURITIES”. It also says “Plaintiff has engaged in extensive marketing activities in connection with its mark CRYPTOSECURITIES, and has expended significant resources to develop its goodwill in and consumer identification with the mark.”
There are a few things that might give you pause.
First, the “federal trademark registration” is an application and it was only filed on January 16, 2018. It was also filed on an intent-to-use basis.
It appears that the plaintiff has now started the business on Cryptosecurities.exchange, a domain name that was just registered on February 20 of this year.
Yet Cryptosecurities.com was registered way back in 2013. It’s been under the same Whois privacy service since at least 2014.
The cryptosecurities.exchange website even has a handy timeline explaining that the idea for the business was created on January 2, 2018:
“The Genesis of CSX. Dr. Castro texts Mo Iqbal at 11:41pm stating “You can basically create a stock exchange that’s blockchain-based.”
I’m intrigued how the plaintiffs are going to argue that the domain was registered in bad faith to target its trademark given that the domain was registered so many years before its business was created.
Interesting to see that the complainant has only FILED 2 trademark applications ,one in January 2018 and one in February 2018, not registered at all as yet,and who knows may never be.
It is a Game this Domain Versus Trademark “thing”.
Wyoming corporation but using Virtual Office Address (13155 Noel Rd. Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75240)
Check this video: https://youtu.be/sG9UMMq2dz4?t=5m45s
Interesting.
That address is only 3 floors above me as I sit in my own office right now.
I’ll go up to the 9th floor later today to see what is up there. There are several law firms on that floor, I know because the FBI and IRS raided one of them last month:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2018/02/06/fbi-raids-dallas-office-building
Mind you, this is one of the more expensive Class A buildings in North Dallas, part of the Galleria Center.
These plaintiffs are not into blockchain tech, more like blockhead.
Get a good lawyer to respond and get a 3 member panel.
I have read the lawsuit. I practice in federal courts in Texas and the owners of the domain name need to file a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before filing an answer.
It turns out they filed a similar trademark lawsuit about the same time. That one didn’t involve a domain but the facts were similar. The defendant in that case did exactly what you said: filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. It started its motion with “This litigation is a sham.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.300236/gov.uscourts.txnd.300236.6.0_2.pdf
This plaintiff is an idiot.
Anonmyize.com is owned by Epik Holdings Inc. It is our free WHOIS privacy proxy used by many people.
The plaintiff has effectively named a “John Doe” in his suit because he has zero clue on the actual identity of the registrant.
And then to top it off, he violated CAN-SPAM on a massive scale in a flailing attempt to identify someone to serve with his pathetic lawsuit.
Incidentally, the price for this domain is $400,000. The complainant is apparently trying to get the upper hand for extracting a price he can afford.
The actual registrant is lawyering up. Counter-claims are mounting. I don’t mind playing the role of ombudsman but what a waste of time for everyone.
Glad to hear he is lawyering up
I imagine since the plaintiffs are lawyers they figure they can get the upper hand because they don’t have to pay anyone. Of course, if a court ruled reverse domain hijacking, that will change
I’ve been waiting for a company that decided to call it’s main product (not the company name) after a domain I registered in 2014. it’s a blockchain domain,they took out a trademark on the name and state first use as 2017.
I have already received two enquiries back to back from California and India where they are based,mind you no links to the company other than the first was from an IT blockchain developer,I replied with a very fair price of ten thousand plus broker fee but have had no reply,I’m assuming they may want to take the udrp route.
I find it funny that companies will spend that money on a couch and chairs for the office but not consider purchasing the dot Com domain before taking out a trademark,I might have sold it for half that in 2016.