Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

Instant Domain Search

Lotto Sport Italia asked to pay $245,000 for reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 8 Comments

Owner of two gaming-related domains had to file a lawsuit to protect his domains after adverse UDRP ruling.

Logo for Lotto Sport Italia

A man who won a reverse domain name hijacking claim against Lotto Sport is asking for Attorneys’ fees.

Lawyers for a man who won a reverse domain name hijacking charge against Lotto Sport Italia have asked a judge to force the sports company to pay approximately $245,000 to the domain owner.

David Dent acquired LottoStore .com and LottoWorks .com for over $11,000 for his online gaming business. Shortly after registering the domain names, Lotto Sport filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO ruled in favor of Lotto Sport in a case that was flimsily defended.

Dent then hired new lawyers to protect his domains with a lawsuit in U.S. federal district court. The judge granted Dent’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Lotto Sport was attempting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Now, Dent is asking the court to award him attorneys’ fees of $243,991.50 (pdf).

The lawsuit states:

Large, multimillion dollar corporations should not be able to force individuals or smaller businesses to choose between losing hundreds of thousands of dollars (even if they win) to keep their property, or surrendering, simply because the large corporation has deep pockets and a large litigation budget. Potential UDRP plaintiffs need to know that if they force legitimate domain owners such as David to take them to court to protect their property from seizure based on shoddy or non-existent cybersquatting claims, they have some exposure in terms of attorneys’ fees. Absent this, the bully will always win (right or wrong), because the little guy will have no choice but to surrender.

Dent is represented by Jeffrey Johnson of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP, and John Berryhill.

California restaurant chain fights over domain name

by — Policy & Law 7 Comments

Cafe fights marketing firm for domain name.

A picture of a loaf of sourdough with the words "A Sour Lawsuit"

A California restaurant chain has gone to court to try to recover a domain name that it says it rightfully owns.

West Coast Sourdough filed an in rem lawsuit (pdf) in Federal District Court in Virginia on Thursday to try to get the domain name WestCoastSourdough .com.

According to the restaurant chain, the domain was registered on its behalf on January 7. The Plaintiff says that it subsequently engaged with  James Terry and Sacramento Connected for social media marketing website design and development services. The restaurant alleges that those parties “fraudulently induced Plaintiff to authorize Sacramento Connected to turn over control of the
Domain.”

Historical Whois records at DomainTools show that the domain was registered to someone in India on January 7. It has been under Whois privacy since at least April.

I suspect the plaintiffs chose a lawsuit instead of UDRP because the restaurant chain first used the mark earlier this year and might have difficulty showing that the domain was registered in bad faith given the timeline. A UDRP panel might also view it as a contractual dispute not fit for UDRP.

It does seem a bit odd that this dispute would proceed as an in rem lawsuit. The suit is against John Does, but the complaint makes it clear who the Plaintiff believes has taken over control of the domain.

In the meantime, the restaurant chain has been relegated to using the matching .net domain.

 

Credit offer opt-out service sues typosquatters

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Company files in rem suit against seven domain names.

Picture of gavel with the words "lawsuit"

Opt Out Services, LLC has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit (pdf) against seven domain names that it says are typos of its domain name, OptOutPrescreen.com.

The company is a centralized service to allow consumers to opt-out of receiving firm offers of credit or insurance in accordance with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. It is authorized by the major consumer credit reporting agencies including Experian and Transunion.

Opt Out filed the case as an in rem case against the domain names:

oproutprescreen(.)com
optiutprescreen(.)com
optoutpredcreen(.)com
optoutpreescreen(.)com
optoutprrescreen(.)com
optpoutprescreen(.)com
opyoutprescreen(.)com

When I visited the sites this morning, most led to either an ad-filled parked page or redirected to scammy download sites.

David Weslow of Wiley Rein is representing the plaintiff. He has also represented the company behind AnnualCreditReport.com in similar typosquatting lawsuits.

Rob Monster sues after losing UDRP for BC30.com

by — Policy & Law 13 Comments

Monster chose to blast WIPO rather than respond to the three elements of UDRP.

Picture of Rob Monster, CEO of Epik

Rob Monster has filed a lawsuit after losing a UDRP for BC30.com.

Rob Monster, the CEO of domain name registrar Epik, has filed a lawsuit after losing the domain name BC30.com in a UDRP.

Ganeden Biotech, Inc. filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the domain name in December.

Instead of formally responding to the UDRP, Monster sent an email that the WIPO panelist characterized as “needless derogatory remarks (and threats) about the UDRP and the Center.”

While the UDRP does not detail Monster’s message, he posted it publicly on domain name forum NamePros. The email stated that Monster would publicly critique the decision should he lose the case.

Panelist John Swinson wasn’t amused, and he also didn’t have affirmative defenses to the Complainant’s submissions. He found in favor of the Complainant.

Now Monster has filed a lawsuit (pdf) to stay the transfer. He’s also asking for damages.

Monster filed it in U.S. District Court in Washington, where both he and his registrar are located. Monster is representing himself in the lawsuit.

 

Reflex Marketing files lawsuit after losing UDRP

by — Policy & Law 19 Comments

Musical instrument marketing company wants to get a shorter domain name.

Picture of judge's gavel

A regional musical instrument marketing company has turned to the courts after losing a UDRP for the domain name ReflexMarketing.com

Reflex Marketing, LLC operates in the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas. It uses the domain name ReflexMarketingLLC.com.

Earlier this year, it lost a UDRP against the domain name. The panel found that Reflex Marketing did not show that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.

The registrant, who lives in China, acquired the domain name in the drop last year after a marketing agency let it expire.

Now Reflex Marketing has filed an in rem lawsuit (pdf) against the domain name in U.S. District Court in Virginia, where .com registry Verisign is located. It alleges that the registrant violated the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit mentions registrant data verification by World Intellectual Property Organization but doesn’t mention that it lost a UDRP for the name.

As an in rem case, the judge is likely to enter a default judgment unless the domain owner shows up to defend the domain in court.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!