A 75-year-old grandma was shocked to see what her old domain pointed to.
A 75-year-old novelist who was shocked to find adult content on her old domain has sued to get the domain name back.
Nelma Jean Bryson has authored many books over the past two decades including an autobiography, a murder mystery and a fairytale.
She used a domain name matching her full name to promote her books. But it appears the domain expired last year and someone registered the domain upon expiration. That person uses the domain to promote graphic adult content.
Local media in North Carolina covered the story, at which point David Weslow, an attorney with Wiley Rein, reached out to see if he could help. Wiley Rein is now representing Bryson pro bono to try to get the domain back.
The firm helped her file an in rem lawsuit (pdf) against the domain name in U.S. District Court in Virginia.
The cybersquatting lawsuit is based on common law rights to her full name as an author.
Bryson hopes the experience and subsequent lawsuit will help bring awareness to what happened and prevent it from happening to others. She stated:
The loss of my domain name has been devasting, and not something I could have ever anticipated or even knew could happen. Many authors use their name as their domain name to promote their books, and it is more than a simple loss of a domain name that could be replaced when something like this happens. It is a nightmare when the ripple effect takes that loss into one’s personal and literary lives.
Even if the complaint is justified, why should the Asian registrant be subject to US jurisdiction when the registrar is also in Asia?
Filing the lawsuit in US court is probably a waste of time and resources, as the registrar doesn’t have to return the domain.
This is exactly why you need to file a qualified, experienced domain name attorney. The attorney hired in this case should have filed a UDRP.
Bill, this is the second comment in a row from you that doesn’t make any sense. (The first one suggesting someone can just turn off Registry Lock when they log into their account). I know you want to promote your service, but if you make comments that are inaccurate, it doesn’t look good for your service.
They filed this case in Verisign’s home district. The court will ask Verisign to transfer the domain, not the registrar. This law firm has filed many cases like this in the same court, and I think all of them have resulted in a transfer.
First off, David Weslow has a lot more experience than a certain WA attorney who has, so far, lost every UDRP defense he has argued.
Secondly, the REGISTRY is located in this judicial district. That is why anyone who understands the first thing about domain law knows why the EDVA is the go-to court for in rem domain lawsuits.
Finally – your point about resources is completely wrong. If an attorney is taking on a case pro bono, then the cost of filing federal lawsuit is a LOT less than a UDRP. Writing a civil complaint is simpler than a UDRP complaint brief, and not much effort is going to be needed for the motion for default judgment at the back end. It only costs a couple hundred dollars to file a federal lawsuit. That’s the expensive part of lawsuits.
Dropped a “not” in the last sentence.
She talks about how the loss of the domain is devastating, so does that mean that she diligently paid for all renewals and the registrar still let it expire?
The lawsuit seems intentionally silent about the circumstances which is highly curious.
This is a test comment
Dont let “Your” domain expire then. These people who rely on the courts thinking that just because they are somebody successfull that everything belongs to them just absolutely kill me. IF YOU DO NOT OWN SOMETHING, THEN YOU CAN NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP! Especially if you once owned said domain and then let it drop you have absolutely zero rights. If her lawyers were any good they would tell her this.
If coca-cola lets a domain with coca-cola in it expire, do you think you have a right to register it?
Yes andrew, because they let the domain go and created a track record history showing they had no interest in the domain, and anyone can register a domain on a first come first served basis. it can also show that coca-cola legal counsel engaged in bad faith by purposely letting a domain go, especially if they were to litigate it if someone else registered it, showing that they are purposely phishing for litigation. This would be bad faith on coca-cola’s part. The court would look and say hey coca-cola, you guys used to put cocaine in your soda, and now letting domains go with the intent of litigating….Wasting courts time and bad bad faith actions…
Whether or not letting something go was “purposeful” is an open question in these sorts of situations. As it turns out, the legal systems to which we are heirs have been dealing with the concept of “abandonment” in property law for hundreds of years. One of the upshots of people thinking about this particular thing for longer than you have, is that intent to abandon is required to establish actual abandonment. So, no, just because someone may have made a mistake, left something behind, missed a bill, been sick, or whatever, is not itself a reason to conclude they had an intent to abandon whatever it is at issue.
People will rationalize all sorts of atrocious behavior when it suits them, however, Nigerian 419 scammers, for example, feel justified in ripping of wealthy people by using their own greed against them. If someone is willing to fall for the “stand in for the beneficiary of abandoned funds” scam in the first place, then from the scammer’s point of view, they are really doing the work of God by separating greedy people from their money, and getting it into the hands of someone more deserving. But, they are just scamming people.
The domain fully dropped and is currently unregistered.
How can this be the result after all these legal efforts?