Her foundation uses LeanIn.org.
The Sheryl Sandberg & Dave Goldberg Family Foundation has lost a cybersquatting claim it filed against the domain name LeanIn.com. The organization filed the case with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
The Facebook Chief Operating Officer is well-known for her TED Talk and book called Lean In. Her foundation has a subsidiary called LeanIn.Org LLC.
The domain owner, Hecham Ghazal, had a business called LeanIn Inc. that acquired the domain name in July 2010. This was after Sandberg registered the domain name LeanIn.org but before her TED talk and before the book was published.
LeanIn Inc. was later dissolved but the company’s owner retained the domain name.
The foundation argued that the domain name owner acquired the domain in 2015, but the owner provided evidence of his 2010 acquisition of the domain for his business.
WIPO panelist John Swinson noted that the foundation provided no evidence of trademark rights predating Ghazel’s acquisition of the domain name. He wrote:
The Complainant has not provided any evidence, nor has it even attempted to make any argument, as to why the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant or its future business operations in July 2010.
The foundation, therefore, could not show that the domain was registered in bad faith and it lost the case.
Where is the RDNH finding??
Ridiculous. The will to lead but apparently not the will to PAY.
I’m curious if the lawyers actually realized the domain owner got the domain in 2010 or if they genuinely thought it was 2015. If they made the mistake of thinking it was 2015, they could have withdrawn the case once the domain registrant pointed this out.
The Complainant Sheryl Sandberg & Dave Goldberg Family Foundation of Palo Alto, California was represented by Arnold & Porter, United States
Arnold & Porter are IP law experts saying:
Arnold & Porter’s growing Silicon Valley office provides the firm’s clients with sophisticated advice and representation, with particular emphasis on intellectual property matters in the technology and life sciences industries, and on corporate and securities matters for investors and companies from early stages through maturity.
Our intellectual property practice involves patent, copyright, trade secret and trademark litigation, and patent prosecution, as well as counseling in relation to IP disputes.
In the summing up panelist John Swinson said: Where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trade mark rights accrue, a panel will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.
Expert IP lawyers Arnold & Porter therefore would have known or should have known that their case was a loser the minute it was filed.
So why wasn’t RDNH even considered, panelist John Swinson?
http://trtl.com/knew-or-should-have-known.htm
Couldn’t be bothered?
Yes, probably the only way the owner of the domain could have lost this case: links to Sandberg’s book or publications per “Lean On”, or ads/links to whatever class Sandberg’s Foundation has for the trademark, which I assume is publication, media, speaking engagements, maybe entertainment service —
Fair ruling IMO.
I did not see any mention of communication or offer with the domain name owner. Wouldn’t that had been a better place to start?
I’m sure it cost her (foundation) at least $10,000. and she still has ‘nothing’ to show for it but a loss.
The lawyers knew they had a weak case.
The irony here is that she could afford to pay a lot for it and it would have been ‘chump change” for her. Plus, she would have something to show for the expenditure.
Rich people would rather spend twice the money to steal something than pay for it legitimately when they think they are entitled.
Wow. That’s actually really profound
In who is it states that LeanIn.com was purchased 6-28-2002
and LeanIn.org 4-6-2010.
My first question is: regardless of the fact the Complainant Sheryl Sandberg did not provide any evidence of actually using the LeanIn name or their URL prior to July 2010.
Does the original date of purchase ie 2002 have any
bearing on this case?
Apparently Ghezal isn’t the original owner and
Since Hecham Ghazal, had a business called LeanIn Inc. that acquired the domain name in July 2010.
Suppose Ghazel set up a business name to use LeanIn.com for a short while
to claim “ownership” but in reality uses it just as a front and shuts down the business (The UDRP case doesn’t specify when/why LeanIn Inc closed)
Would that change the outcome?
Would the outcome change if Sandberg attempted to buy it from the original owner in June of 2010? Or even from Ghezal in July of 2010?
Would it have mattered if Ghezal’s LeanIn Inc. business was the same kind of business i.e. “advancement for women” as LeanIn.org?
One more question: Can someone postulate ANYWAY or ANY scenario that Sandberg could have won this case?
I would greatly appreciate any illuminating feedback to my curiosity.
Thank you very much,
Bradley
In UDRP the 2002 date has little importance. Panels tend to look at when the current owner got it.
Sandberg would have had to prove some sort of trademark rights when the domain was acquired in 2010. Barring that, there’s no way she could have won the case.
This vestigial pocketpicking in the UDRP drives me insane. It must be stamped out:
When one is talking about a high-value domain name, one is talking about a .com under US jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held in AirFX that domain names are alienable assets: You bought it in 2002? All the rights you possess in it may be sold on to any buyer, even via anonymous sale. Even the rights you hold due to pre-dating a given trademark? Yes, those rights especially.
It is so bloody obvious why. Would you like to be the owner of a clever four-letter domain which is worth a million USD today, but worth 1500 USD tomorrow, should you happen to get shot in the head? (‘Yaaa, vat a bargain I got in a Sedo probate sale for my Russian startup of the same name…’) The law does not operate to foment murder.
If murder isn’t a compelling enough reason, the ACPA exists to combat targeting—if the domain was registered by ANYONE before the trademark, that is not a ‘targeted registration.’ That is an asset of inherent value, which must be protected from calculating hijackers. It is outside the purview of the ACPA, and under the purview of the rest of the hale and hearty Lanham Act. And yet, no need to burden the courts, because webhosts, affiliate companies, and domain registrars are all more than happy to instantly snuff content upon any trademark holder’s boilerplate email. If you built a trademark after the .com was already registered, by anyone, you are absolutely a thief in complainant’s clothing. No gray area whatsoever.
If one is a panelist on these disputes, you are benefitting your firm, you are selling yourself as a TM ‘activist’, and/or you are padding your CV—that is a payoff. Your limp-along findings on ‘respondent’s acquisition date’ are flatly contradictory to the law which you know applies to these .com assets. Respondent’s acquisition date is not the governing date, the governing date in court is the Whois creation date. That is why the creation date is in the concise data within the Whois–you know it, the framers of the ACPA know it, everyone knows it. But no, you persist in putting lives and property in tumult. People are losing assets, ending up in court, mortgaging their homes to pay federal court awards for hijacking—this.is.your.fault.
Panelists and the arbitration fora must cease feigning ignorance just to keep these disputes flowing into their pockets. As if ‘past decision language’ is remotely binding. The UDRP has been wrong and changed direction innumerable times. It has been a bucket of snakes since inception and the public and the courts are not tolerating it one more bloody day, if you didn’t get that memo.
Panelists know this UDRP position is entirely wrong, not nebulously wrong, squarely wrong, and invariably held to be wrong in court. This self-serving lapse of duty has enormous consequences to parties and onlookers–the buck stops with you, Panelists and fora. Your job, your duty, your payoff, and your fault.