Did a lotto company buy domains for its business or to cyber squat?
A battle over lotto-related domain names is about two-and-a-half years old, and it’s entering a critical period.
Lotto Sport Italia, the soccer apparel company, filed a cybersquatting dispute under UDRP against the domain names LottoStore.com and LottoWorks.com at the beginning of 2017.
The domain names were purchased by a Canadian man who runs a lotto (as in gambling) business. David Dent acquired lottostore.com in September 2016 for $4,820 and then purchased lottoworks.com in December 2016 for $6,500.
Lotto Sport won the UDRP. My take at the time was that this was an end user purchase of lotto-related domain names for a lotto business, but that Dent was not represented well in the UDRP response.
Dent sued to stop the transfer. Now, over two years later, both parties have filed motions for summary judgment in the case.
Will either party prevail in their motions? It’s difficult to say, but looking at this case from the outside, I belive my original supposition was correct: a lotto business bought domain names with the word lotto in them to operate its lotto business. It had no intention of infringing the rights of a soccer apparel company. It strains credulity to suggest otherwise.
We’ll see what the judge has to say.
The soccer company is represented by Marc Randazza. Its motion is here.
The lotto company is represented by John Berryhill and Jeffrey Johnson of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts. Its motion is here.
There is a pending UDRP on LOTTO.COM by what appears to be an unrelated party:
Would like to see attorneys charged as co conspirators in RDNH.
Strain of credulity defined.
In the very least a follow up complaint to the bar.
I appreciate the different approach each attorney takes in this case.
1. Actual facts and law,
And, IMHO, the other, gross mis-representaion with nearly zero material evidence for financial gain.
The only claim of identical marketing channel:
The internet, LOL.
To often in these types of cases the “win” is forcing a legitimate party to defend and denying the party legal use of property it possesses.
Both parties had the opportunity to purchase for legal use.
Lotto sports had to have known lottoworks.com was not available when it registered lotto works.net in 2004 instead. Squatter!
No due diligence at that time to defend its Arbitrary marks at that time.
these “Lotto”-companies are too late to the domain-party.
Why didn’t they BUY the respective domains 10 or 15 years ago for cheap ?
Real-Estate prices are increasing all over the world. Same as domain-prices are increasing. Now pay up or go home. Simple as that.
Your funny trademarks are worthless.