Addicting.com owner challenges in rem action.
The owner of the domain name Addicting.com showed up to defend its domain name in a lawsuit.
Addicting Games, Inc., led by Bill Karamouzis (podcast), filed an in rem lawsuit against the domain name in January claiming cybersquatting.
Federal Investment Group, LLC (FIG), led by Krikor Bedrossian, has now filed with the court (pdf) to dismiss the case or move the jurisdiction.
FIG is Nevada corporation.
According to the motion, Bill Karamouzis met with Krikor Bedrossian at a TRAFFIC conference in 2011, and the two discussed the domain name. Bedrossian questions why in rem is proper given that Karamouzi allegedly knew who owned the domain name.
The motion also states that the domain has had common ownership since 1999. This predates Addicting Games’ trademark, which would mean the domain was not registered in bad faith to target the mark.
An affidavit (pdf) from lawyer Paul Keating is included in the filing. The affidavit includes supporting documentation about the ownership of the domain.
Mike says
What a loser Bill is, use your millions to pay a pair price douche
Joshua Hoy says
Wow Bill, wow.
Braden Pollock says
Andrew, you’re covering just one side of this story and it’s far from accurate. Why would Bill care about Addicting.com in 2011? He had sold Addicting Games years earlier. I doubt that meeting even occurred. Bill invests in domains – and has proven to understand the value by spending big money on domains. If he knew the guy, why wouldn’t he just reach out to buy the name? This is all very fishy. I suggest you reach out to Bill for comment so you can get accurate information.
John Berryhill says
Surely there is a surfer somewhere who can provide expert commentary on this story.
The article seems to be entitled “Addicting.com owner shows up to defend domain name” and the article describes what is in the motion filed by the domain registrant. If that seems “one sided” to you then, duh, it is a description of what was filed by one side.
It would be stupid for Bill to provide blog commentary on his own litigation. If he has competent legal representation – i.e. not you – he would be advised not to provide any commentary to Andrew at all.
“I doubt that meeting even occurred.”
So Bedrossian’s declaration is perjured, and both Jason Schaffer and Paul Keating are suborning perjury. Do I understand what you are saying, Braden?
Braden Pollock says
John. Are you saying every client you’ve had, has been entirely truthful? My comments are no reflection on Jason nor Paul, whatsoever. I have complete respect for them and I’m not questioning their ethical standards. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have no first hand knowledge about this case. I’m simply questioning the “facts” as this story doesn’t make sense to me.
Andrew Allemann says
The document addresses this:
To be fair, February is after the case was filed. The problem at this point is that the current owner of the domain has owned it since well before AddictingGames.com existed, so I don’t see how a win under ACPA is possible.