Lotto Sport tried to reverse domain name hijack a lottery operator’s domains.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine has ordered (pdf) sports apparel company Lotto Sport Italia to pay approximately $237,000 in attorneys’ fees stemming from a reverse domain name hijacking case.
Lotto Sport filed a cybersquatting dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against David Dent’s domain names LottoStore .com and LottoWorks .com. Dent acquired the domains for over $11,000 with plans to use them for his online gaming business, only to be hit with the UDRP shortly after acquiring the domains.
Dent’s initial case was poorly defended and a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel found in Lotto Sport’s favor. So Dent was forced to defend his domains by filing a lawsuit.
The court granted summary judgment finding (pdf) reverse domain name hijacking against Lotto Sport. Dent then filed for attorneys’ fees, with the court granting nearly the full amount.
Jeffrey Johnson of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP, and John Berryhill represented Dent. Marc Randazza initially represented lotto Sport Italia until the company lost the substantive part of the judgment.
John’s rates must have gone up. 🙂
It was the other firm’s rates.
I can see why Lotto would think LottoWorks and LottoStore violate their trademarks, they had a valid claim imo, a reverse domain name hijacking ruling is just wrong. On the other hand, I read today that finwise.com was transferred to the complainant, which judging from the number of companies branding as “finwise” (with many being more established than the complainant) is a stupid decision and it came from a three-member panel. The owner should submit a lawsuit to block the transfer.
The UDRP isn’t about just “violating trademarks”. Sure, on the surface it could look bad, and if the owner sold soccer stuff it would be grounds for transfer. But if you are in the online gaming business, that’s a different story. The facts of this case clearly showed that the person wasn’t targeting the soccer company.
You are right, I didn’t research the term good enough. I mainly focused on LottoWorks.com but
LottoStore.com is definitely a name with a good use case in the gaming market. “Lotto Works” though is a specific sub-brand of Lotto the sports equipment company. I have a hard time seeing lottoworks.com being effectively used by a gaming website(https://research.domaintools.com/research/domain-search/?query=lottoworks)
Anyway, I’m definitely not advocating for anyone losing a domain if they don’t use it in a way that harms a brand but personally I can see why Lotto filed the UDRP. There are many other cases that don’t even get ruled as RDNH where it is obvious to a domainer that they are exactly that(like finwise.com for example, the complainant even inquired to learn the price, didn’t like it, filed a UDRP, won a valuable domain that would be desired by tens of companies).
Good for Dent. Sadly, he’ll likely never see a dime from this other-country firm.