Here’s why domain investors got subpoena notices from Enom.
There’s been a lot of talk in domain circles today about subpoena notices for domains at Enom.
The subpoena stems from a lawsuit that Scratch Foundation, a non-profit created at MIT, filed against the domain name Scratch.org.
Scratch Foundation filed the case as in rem (meaning against the domain), but Ravi Lahoti stepped forward as the owner. Lahoti says he’s owned the domain name since 1998. DomainTools historical Whois records seem to corroborate his story, at least until Scratch Foundation was formed, although the domain has bounced around different entities/privacy services.
This brings us to the subpoena, which you can view here (pdf). Attorney David Weslow, who is representing Scratch Foundation, asked Enom for a list of Lahoti’s domains. The original subpoena was quite a bit broader than that, but these things are often narrowed between the lawyer and recipient. Regardless, Enom has apparently notified anyone who owns a domain that was at any point tied to Lahoti.
It seems that Weslow is trying to paint Lahoti as a serial cybersquatter.
Indeed, in a recent order (pdf), the judge wrote “Plaintiff has also brought various other anticybersquatting cases against Mr. Lahoti to the Court’s attention which demonstrate that Mr.
Lahoti is a notorious cybersquatter.”
Whether or not Lahoti is a notorious cybersquatter shouldn’t matter on the claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act so long as Lahoti proves that he owned the domain before Scratch Foundation had rights in the mark. This seems like it will be easy to do.
But there’s an interesting wrinkle in the lawsuit: it also claims trademark infringement. Should Scratch Foundation show that prior ads on Scratch.org infringed on its trademarks, could it win a judgment against the domain? I’m not familiar with how a judgment for trademark infringement works in an in rem case. But it’s clear that the trademark infringement claim is part of the effort to get control of the domain.
There’s a lesson here involving in rem lawsuits. Lahoti asked the court to name Lahoti as the defendant instead of in rem. This might make it easier to defend but also opens him up to personal liability. The court denied this request on the basis that Lahoti didn’t object early enough to in rem jurisdiction.
interesting in that Ravi is the brother of UDRPsearch.com owner David Lahoti
https://domainnamewire.com/2017/05/31/udrpsearch-forwarding-page-lawsuit/
Deja Vu . I recall a few years ago the exact same thing filed against me in the same Court. Can say no more than that. It wasn’t all doom and gloom. Conference call with Judge from my home Country ,all sorted.
Their mark dates back to 2016 and on top of that they aren’t the only ones that have scratch as a TM. More BS from people that feel entitled but can’t afford to pay for something someone owns.
Hey I might as well sue joe shmo cause he won’t except my offer on his property and I feel as if I should live there.
I received a notice of me being subpoenaed for scratch.org yesterday.
We also received one of those forwarded subpoena notices. In my opinion, this case is as frivolous as it gets. Domain name owner won’t sell the generic domain name at the price you want? Sue the domain name in rem and try to harass the owner into settling rather than spending thousands and thousands of dollars on attorney fees. I hope this particular owner fights back and holds those each of those MIT based individuals / principals accountable for this attempted domain name theft. I hope the Court awards 100K in damages at a minimum against the foundation for filing and eve continuing with the malicious action.. They (including their lawyer) should know better so they should pay.
look up the list of domains the lahotis own. it speaks volumes to their characters.
Humans eat, sleep, and copulate–these are the unremarkable biological imperatives on which the vast majority of commerce revolves. So just the facts, Spam. You’re deploying the language of either 1) a bog-standard religious sexual dysfunctionary, or 2)
an interested party with a paucity of determinative facts in his or her arsenal. Neither attack approach is ‘honorable’…if we’re using nebulous, charged, yet legally-irrelevant terminology here.
I’ve scanned their hundreds of silly, porny names. One has to go through endless pages before there’s even a single page with any outlinks. They’re not producers, they’ve just invested in a subset of domains which, arguably, has a long-standing and proven investment upside. Their track record of actual posted links shows they’re predisposed to err well on the side of legal caution–particularly in regards to the SCRATCH.ORG domain, as shown by the site history. They weren’t legally bound to limit their outlinks to arid credit products–which children can’t purchase.
And, can we stop granting Weslow’s federal-lawbreakers the flattering light of their past proximity to MIT? If Two Sigma hedge-funder David Siegel and Scratch Foundation Director Lisa O’Brien have no qualms about distorting facts in an attempt to hijack an asset from its rightful owner, they shouldn’t be involved in shepherding the ethics of young people.
Ethics in tech training for kids is important to all of us–the consequences are long-range. Remember when Siegel’s Two Sigma was called out for mining cell phone data to get ahead on trades?* Stealing this domain is ‘of a piece’ with that entitlement culture. ‘Take what you want from people, they’re too slow and stupid to defend themselves.’ I’m furious that attorney David Weslow is using our court resources and my tax dollars to show children how to operate above the law. ‘Cast aspersions’ and ‘muddy the issues’ to get what you want, Kids. Weslow and the board of Scratch Foundation are planting bad seeds, and the court needs to deliver a lesson in parenting.
*https://www.wsj.com/articles/legal-suit-shedding-light-on-secret-trading-technology-1434965402
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-computers-trawl-a-sea-of-data-for-stock-picks-1427941801
Is Mr Weslow burning his reputation by taking on a case like this? I find it strange that he’d advertise on Sherpa yet take on a case that smells badly of RDNH?
To late, damage is done.
I guess maybe the dark side pays better.
The case might smell like RDNH but the MONEY from MIT smells pretty darn good I guess..
Weslow got his reputation by taking on a few cases for domainers but now went full corporate. Gotta pay the bills.