$20,000 agreement falls through.
A settlement to resolve a dispute over the domain name Scratch.org has fallen apart.
Scratch Foundation, a non-profit created at MIT, filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against the domain name Scratch.org in January.
It was an in rem case against the domain, but Ravi Lahoti responded to the dispute saying that he was the owner of the domain. He also said that he was the original registrant of the domain dating to 1998. (Historical Whois records seem to bear out.)
This was before Scratch Foundation existed, but the group continued with its case. It even issued a subpoena to a domain registrar asking for information on more of Lahoti’s domains. Scratch Foundation is trying to paint a picture of Lahoti as a serial cybersquatter and wants information about his other domains and revenue generated from them.
The catch, as I see it, is that it would be impossible for Scratch Foundation to show that Scratch.org was registered in bad faith since Lahoti registered it well before the non-profit existed. Even if Lahoti has registered other domains in bad faith, it seems a stretch to say that about Scratch.org.
The two parties entered into settlement negotiations in which Lahoti would transfer the domain to Scratch Foundation for $20,000. As part of this, Scratch Foundation dropped discovery related to Lahoti’s other domains.
Now it gets to a he said, she said after the settlement apparently broke down.
Scratch Foundation says the settlement was agreed to and Lahoti broke it. Lahoti says that it was agreed to in principle, but he wasn’t happy with some of the final language and provisions in the agreement.
Following the breakdown, Scratch Foundation is moving forward with its demand for the data about Lahoti’s other domains.
Richard says
“Lahoti says that it was agreed to in principle, but he wasn’t happy with some of the final language and provisions in the agreement“
Weslow draftet that agreement, what did the guy expect
raceflag says
How is the Scratch Foundation and its principals (from the MIT media lab) connected to Jeffrey Epstein? It is clear that SF is using frivolous litigation to force Lahoti into selling his domain name at a price they want to pay. Pay us or we will make you pay your lawyers – even though they know full well they have no case. Hopefully, the judge will get clued in on this BS and make this a fair playing field for Lahoti.
John Berryhill says
As described by its principal:
———
I’m the LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research at the MIT Media Lab, where I lead the Lifelong Kindergarten research group.
My group develops Scratch, the world’s leading coding platform for kids.
———
…and the Media Lab was funded by what appears to have been the world’s leading sexual abuse platform for kids.
How convenient.
MIKE says
I have seen this before with these type of MIT people. They are great and Academia, BUT what they lack is any business or commonsense, and are easy prey for Lawyers who lead them on to pay them fees . Really MIT should use their brains to realise this but there really is something missing.
Russian Troll says
This may be the saint syndrome. Helping kids, non-profit and all. Self-importance beyond limits.
MIKE says
Yes agreed.
C.S. Watch says
“Indeed, in accepting the settlement offer, Defendant’s counsel sought confirmation that…” (From Wiley Rein’s Factual Background.)
In accepting? “On June 25, 2019, Defendant’s counsel “convey[ed] my client’s intent to accept the offer below in principle to resolve this matter…”
Intent to accept is not a signed settlement agreement. By contrast, misleading a federal judge is routinely considered lying under oath.
Wiley Rein is racking up billable hours to pursue disclosure of Lahoti’s domains, but those names can be dredged up online for free. No, Weslow must have seen that banal list already. The strategy was probably shame extortion. ‘Give us this domain! Do you want the whole world to know you own TemperamentalLabias.com?! FrabjousDong.com?! I’m phoning aunties!’
Meanwhile, Scratch Foundation still hasn’t registered SCRATCHTEAM.ORG, when ‘Scratch Team’ is what they call themselves when selling their merch. Greedyguts.
Konstantinos Zournas says
Scratch Foundation seems like a terrible organization with poor representation.
thelegendaryjp says
I feel horrible for the scratch.org owner, all the best to him in this case.
MIKE says
Someone I know is being sued by a company with a connection to MIT for “passing off” for applying for a Trade Mark for various goods and services, even though they have NEVER traded with the name. The “MIT” related claim is that the simple act of applying for a trade mark is “passing off” . Is that how US laws work ?