Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Search Results for: stanley pace

Stanley Pace challenges another UDRP decision in court

by — Policy & Law 5 Comments

Lawsuit filed to halt transfer of Lascal.com.

Stanley Pace, who has a history of UDRP cases as well as challenging adverse decisions in court, has filed a lawsuit (pdf) in an effort to overturn a decision against his domain name Lascal.com.

Joran Lundh, who is associated with the stroller and kids safety business Lascal, filed a complaint against Lascal.com with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in August.

Pace acquired the domain name in 2016 when it expired. He argued that he registered it because Lascal is a surname and a term to described planned roads between Las Vegas and California.

The single-member WIPO panel agreed with Lundh that Pace was cybersquatting with his registration of lascal.com and ordered the domain name to be transferred.

In response, Pace filed a lawsuit arguing this is a case of reverse domain name hijacking. He is asking a court for declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.

Pace recently moved from Texas to Washington and hired Seattle-based lawyer Derek Newman to represent him in the lawsuit. (Steven Rinehart represented Pace in the UDRP.)

Lundh, a Swedish citizen located in Hong Kong, submitted to jurisdiction in Pace’s location when he filed the UDRP.

Stanley Pace sues for alleged Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

by — Policy & Law 7 Comments

Pace sues after losing UDRP to dancewear company.

Stanley Pace, a Texas resident who has faced his fair share of UDRP complaints, lost another one last month. A three member UDRP panel ordered the domain name Yumiko.com transferred to dancewear company Yumiko, LLC.

He’s fighting back to halt the transfer and is asking for damages under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act for reverse domain name hijacking.

Pace filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas on December 30. This will halt the transfer of the domain name, and now Yumiko will find itself on the defensive.

Howard Neu, who represented Pace in the UDRP, is also representing him in the lawsuit. Click here to continue reading…

Texas man sues Fortune 500 liquor company to overturn cybersquatting decision

by — Policy & Law 7 Comments

Liquor company says that Rufino.com is a typo of its Ruffino brand.

Wine maker Ruffino claims that Rufino.com is a typosquatting domain.

A Texas man who owns 60,000 domain names has sued Fortune 500 liquor company Constellation Brands, Inc in an effort to overturn an adverse Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decision.

Constellation Brands (NYSE: STZ) and its wine-making subsidiary Ruffino SRL filed a UDRP against Flower Mound, Texas resident Stanley Pace arguing that his domain name Rufino.com (one ‘f’) was typosquatting and an attempt to take advantage of the Ruffino brand. Pace countered that he owns 10,000 domain names that match surnames and that Rufino is a surname.

The UDRP panel sided with Constellation Brands. Pace filed suit in U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas to try to overturn the decision.

The suit asks for declaratory relief stating that Pace is not cybersquatting and damages for reverse domain name hijacking.

Among Pace’s claims is that Constellation Brands falsely claimed in the UDRP that the parked page at Rufino.com showed ads for Constellation’s competitors. Although I didn’t see the evidence Constellation would generally be required to file in a UDRP, screenshots from the past several years recorded at Screenshots.com do not have any liquor-related ad links.

(Do not visit Rufino.com. It is now parked with Above.com and zero click landers, one of which led to a scam page that my antivirus software blocked.)

Howard Neu represented Pace in the UDRP and is representing him in the lawsuit.

What domain names Goldman Sachs and others bought this week

by — Domain Sales 1 Comment

Goldman Sachs among companies that bought domain names through Sedo over the past week.

Piech.com sold for $79,000.

The top public sale at domain name marketplace Sedo over the past week was for Piech.com. The buyer is using whois privacy but has already uploaded a logo for its new venture. It will be interesting to see what they do with the domain.

Other end user domain sales include a company that paid €10,000 to buy the .com to match its .de, Goldman Sachs buying a French country code domain name and South African company buying a domain name to match one of its brand.

Here’s the list of end user sales I uncovered: Click to continue reading…

Fun and games with UDRP

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Domain name, registered by cat, goes back to Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley must have been mad. After all, a consultant was using the domain name mymorgan stanleyplatinum.com in his seminars to show how large companies fail to register obvious domain names. So when Morgan Stanley filed for arbitration to get the domain name back, they were probably shocked by the antics of the consultant.

The owner of record on the domain was a cat. Seriously. The official arbitration decision states:

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Baila H. Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6799. Respondent is Meow (“Respondent”), Baroness Penelope Cat of Nash DCB, Ashbed Barn, Boraston Track, Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire WR15 8LQ, GB.

The arbitrator had fun writing his response in the case:

Respondent maintains that it is a cat, that is, a well-known carnivorous quadruped which has long been domesticated. However, it is equally well-known that the common cat, whose scientific name is Felis domesticus, cannot speak or read or write. Thus, a common cat could not have submitted the Response (or even have registered the disputed domain name). Therefore, either Respondent is a different species of cat, such as the one that stars in the motion picture “Cat From Outer Space,” or Respondent’s assertion regarding its being a cat is incorrect.

If Respondent is in fact a cat from outer space, then it should have so indicated in its reply, in order to avoid unnecessary perplexity by the Panel. Further, it should have explained why a cat from outer space would allow Mr. Woods to use the disputed domain name. In the absence of such an explanation, the Panel must conclude that, if Respondent is a cat from outer space, then it may have something to hide, and this is indicative of bad faith behavior.

On the other hand, if Respondent’s assertion regarding its being a cat is incorrect, then Respondent has undoubtedly attempted to mislead this Panel and has provided incorrect WHOIS information. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith. See Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name); see also Quixtar Invs., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that use of false registration information constitutes bad faith).

Respondent cites Morgan Stanley v. Michael Woods, FA 604103 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2005), in which the Panel found that Complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration and use. But that case must be distinguished from the present case, because in that case the Respondent was Mr. Woods, and not a cat or someone who has misled the Panel by pretending to be a cat.

The Panel finds that Respondent’s assertions that it is a cat provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. And this despite the fact that the Panel, unlike Queen Victoria, is amused.