Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Owner of CryptoSecurities.exchange goes after CryptoSecurities.com

by — Policy & Law 11 Comments

CryptoSecurities.com was registered in 2013 and the plaintiff’s business was just created this year.

A law firm that created a business on the domain name CryptoSecurities.exchange has filed a lawsuit (pdf) against the owner of the CryptoSecurities.com domain name

In the suit, plaintiff Castro & Co claims to have “a federal trademark registration, no. 87756075, for the mark CRYPTOSECURITIES”. It also says “Plaintiff has engaged in extensive marketing activities in connection with its mark CRYPTOSECURITIES, and has expended significant resources to develop its goodwill in and
consumer identification with the mark.”

There are a few things that might give you pause.

First, the “federal trademark registration” is an application and it was only filed on January 16, 2018. It was also filed on an intent-to-use basis.

It appears that the plaintiff has now started the business on Cryptosecurities.exchange, a domain name that was just registered on February 20 of this year.

Yet Cryptosecurities.com was registered way back in 2013. It’s been under the same Whois privacy service since at least 2014.

The cryptosecurities.exchange website even has a handy timeline explaining that the idea for the business was created on January 2, 2018:

“The Genesis of CSX. Dr. Castro texts Mo Iqbal at 11:41pm stating “You can basically create a stock exchange that’s blockchain-based.”

cryptosecurities.exchange

I’m intrigued how the plaintiffs are going to argue that the domain was registered in bad faith to target its trademark given that the domain was registered so many years before its business was created.

Share17
Share
+1
Email
Shares 24

Another example of why your company must be the registrant of its domain names

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Airline alleges that former contractors are holding its domain names hostage.

Flair Airlines alleges that former contracts are holding its domain names hostage, forcing it to change its website address.

A small Canadian airline says that former contractors are holding its two main domain name hostage, causing the company to lose substantial sales. It’s yet another example of why a company must be the registered owner of its domain names rather than letting a third party be the registrant.

In a lawsuit (pdf) filed in Illinois yesterday, Flair Airlines Ltd claims that former customer service and website services contractors were supposed to register FlairAirlines.com and FlairAirlines.ca in the airline’s name.

When the relationship soured and was terminated, the airline found out that the domains were not in its control. The airline could not get control of the domains or make changes to them at GoDaddy because it wasn’t the official registrant.

In its suit, the airline says that it was forced to switch its domain name to FlairAir.ca. On the day of the switch the company’s sales went from $64k to $29k, it says. It had to spend money for Google Adwords to direct customers to the “correct” website.

Regardless of who is at fault for the termination of the business relationship, this is just another example of why a company must be the registrant of its domain names. It should also have the master registrar controls for the domain name.

Share16
Share
+1
Email
Shares 35

Bespoke.com domain owner successfully defends another attack

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Judge tosses latest attempt to get Bespoke.com domain name.

You have to feel bad for Garth Piesse.

The New Zealand resident bought Bespoke.com in a competitive expired domain auction on DropCatch.com in 2014 for $18,805. It was a pretty good deal. But now his legal costs have surely dwarfed his purchase price.

First, Bespoke Services Group S.A. of Switzerland filed a UDRP against the domain name. It lost.

Then, a New Orleans company called Bespoke, LLC filed a lawsuit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

It was going to be hard to convince a U.S. court of jurisdiction over the New Zealand resident, but the Lousiana company tried its hardest with some far-fetched claims. Piesse, represented by attorney David Weslow, filed a motion to dismiss the Louisiana case in July 2017. A judge dismissed (pdf) the lawsuit this week due to lack of jurisdiction.

In some ways, Piesse has a ready defense the next time a company tries to file a cybersquatting claim against the domain: if three companies think that Bespoke.com infinges their trademark, it will be hard to convince anyone that Piesse was targeting them with his domain registration.

Share9
Share
+1
Email
Shares 25

Weed control company files lawsuit claiming Weeds.com is cybersquatting

by — Policy & Law 9 Comments

Company that uses the domain name WeedsInc.com files lawsuit in effort to get Weeds.com.

Weeds, Inc. wants to upgrade its domain name from WeedsInc.com to Weeds.com. It filed a UDRP and the a lawsuit.

A weed control company has filed a lawsuit (pdf) claiming that Innovation HQ is cybersquatting with its ownership of the Weeds.com domain name.

Weeds, Inc. provides commercial and industrial weed control in the mid-atlantic and mid-western states. It uses the domain name WeedsInc.com.

It filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization back in July. That case has not been decided yet, but the company decided to go ahead and file a lawsuit anyway. It’s interesting that it filed a lawsuit before the UDRP was determined. It could be because the act of filing a UDRP resulted in GoDaddy removing the Whois proxy. It could also be because it’s concerned it will lose the UDRP.

You might be scratching your head wondering how a company in the weed control business got a trademark for the term “weeds”. I know I certainly was.

The company filed a trademark application in 2005. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sent a refusal notice on the grounds that it was merely descriptive.

Weeds, Inc. responded by pointing to litigation if filed against a competing company. It argued that “weeds” was suggestive, not descriptive, much in the way that “Staples” is suggestive of a store that sells staples. Of course, Staples sells a lot more than staples.

The lawsuit in question was eventually settled, but the trademark office ended up issuing the trademark.

The parked page at Weeds.com includes search terms that you’d expect to find there…”horticulture”, “gardening” and more. Weeds.com was registered in 1998.

The oldest DomainTools historical Whois record for the domain shows Innovation HQ as the owner.

I have a feeling this is going to end up being an expensive lawsuit for Weeds, Inc.

Share8
Share8
+1
Email
Shares 32

$65,000 legal fees awarded in reverse domain name hijacking case

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Judge awards attorney’s fees in exceptional case.

A federal district court judge has ordered two men to pay close to $65,000 in attorneys fees after filing a lawsuit over the domain name BeautifulPeople.com and other related domains.

In 2015 Beautiful People Magazine, Inc filed a UDRP against the domain names even though their claimed rights to the name postdated the domains’ registration dates. A National Arbitration Forum panel found the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Shockingly, people associated with the complainant in the UDRP then filed a federal lawsuit to try to get the domain names. The court dismissed the case citing the registrations dates coming before the trademarks.

According to the ruling, the plaintiffs pursued the case when the defendants refused to settle by providing a licensing agreement.

Given the egregious nature of the case, the judge called it “exceptional” and ordered (pdf) the plaintiffs to pay $65,000 in attorney’s fees.

Share61
Share25
+1
Email
Shares 129