Weeds.com owner asks court to penalize weed control company for reverse domain name hijacking.
Last year a regional weed control company in the United States called Weeds, Inc. filed a UDRP cybersquatting claim against Innovation HQ, Inc, the owner of Weeds.com.
Before the UDRP decision was published, Weeds, Inc. followed up by filing a federal lawsuit against Innovation HQ. Shortly thereafter, the World Intellectual Property Organization UDRP panel published its decision that Weeds, Inc. had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking by filing the UDRP.
It took a while for Weeds, Inc. to serve Innovation HQ, but now the case is moving forward. And as I predicted, this could end up being a costly case for the weed control company: Innovation HQ is fighting back.
Innovation HQ is asking the court (pdf) to grant damages for reverse domain name hijacking, plus other fees. It also alleges that Weeds, Inc. committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to get its trademark and is asking the court to order the trademark to be canceled. All told, if the court agrees, Weeds, Inc. could be forced to pay over $100,000.
John Berryhill is representing Innovation HQ.
Andrew please keep us updated on this case. These are the weapons that domain investors and speculators must learn to master in defending valuable digital real estate.
I would donate to a gofundme for this.
Innovation hq doesn’t need your money, they are very well funded
Sure, I want to donate to the cause on principle.
Would you donate to a gofundme to fight Netflix who is using my domain name and registered trademark?
Good luck to Innovation HQ on this one… I can see a 4.20 moment here!
Love it when someone does something like this, so good for the cause. May lead to a whole new heterosexual man crush love for Berryhill I never knew I’d be capable of, even if he gives me a hard time again… 😀
If they win (and i feel they will) it will be a historical moment for us domain owners.
JB would be my first choice for something like this.
He represented us at WIPO for a similar case that led to a RDNH too.