Company abruptly withdraws in rem case in Florida as it fights in Georgia.
Last week I wrote about how Brazilian banking company Nubank filed an in rem lawsuit in Florida against the domain name Nubank.com. It filed the dispute after being found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP proceeding for the domain name.
Nubank (officially, Nu Pagamentos S.A.) abruptly dismissed the Florida lawsuit today, just six days after filing it.
In the Florida lawsuit, Nubank’s lawyers state:
This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Domain Defendant pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A) because NUBANK.COM is registered using a privacy service so Nubank is unable to confirm the identity of the registrant.
A personal named George Daniel Hudson Jr. claims to be the owner of NUBANK.COM. However, due to a privacy service that blocks public information about the registrant under the WHOIS database, Nubank is unable to confirm whether Mr. Hudson or some other person or entity is the owner of the NUBANK.COM domain.
I found this odd, given that Hudson’s identity was verified in the UDRP and he linked to his LinkedIn profile from a recent site hosted on the domain name.
But it’s worse than that. It’s clear that Nubank knows who owns the domain; it has a separate lawsuit in Georgia (pdf) courts about the domain that names Hudson as the defendant.
Nubank sued Hudson for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, et al. on March 31 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
So the company filed the Flordia lawsuit in which it pleads that it can’t confirm if Hudson owns the domain name after filing a case in Georgia that identifies who owns the domain. Does that make sense?
Hudson filed a response and counterclaims (pdf) in the Georgia lawsuit on May 12.