Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

Former France.com owner continues fight

by — Policy & Law 16 Comments

Man who lost domain name to France files petition for en banc rehearing.

Picture of Eiffel Tour in France

Jean-Noël Frydman isn’t done fighting to regain control of France.com, a domain name he registered in 1994.

Frydman lost control of the domain name in 2018 after the French government presented a Paris Court of Appeals decision to Web.com, and Web.com transferred the domain to France.

The French Republic asserted the exclusive right to use the term “France” commercially, contending that under French law, the name “France” cannot be appropriated or used commercially by a private enterprise because doing so violates the French Republic’s exclusive right to its name and infringes on its sovereignty.

Frydman sued, but successive U.S. courts have delivered blows to his pursuit of getting the domain back. In a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision, the court agreed that the French government has sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Now, Frydman has petitioned the appeals court for en banc rehearing. An en banc rehearing in appeals court is when the full court considers the case (rather than the three-judge panel) because the decision conflicts with other decisions by that court or a Supreme Court decision.

The new filing (pdf) states:

The Panel’s opinion conflicts with controlling authority and authoritative decisions in other Circuits and raises questions of exceptional importance regarding (1) United States citizens’ ability to enforce trademark rights against foreign sovereigns within the United States, (2) the supremacy of United States law, (3) the role of United States Courts in protecting United States-based property and property rights, and (4) the enforceability of United States intellectual property rights.

Korean chicken restaurant chain settles lawsuit with domain investor

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Company had tried to secure a domain through a UDRP, only to be hit with a lawsuit.

Screenshot for Mom's Touch chicken and burger restaurant website

Domain investor GNO has settled a lawsuit against a Korean chicken restaurant chain over the domain MomsTouch.com.

Korean fast food chain Mom’s Touch has settled a lawsuit domain name investor GNO, Inc. (Gregg Ostrick) filed against it.

Mom’s Touch’s parent company, Haimarrow Food Service, Co., Ltd, filed a UDRP with Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre in August 2020 against GNO’s domain MomsTouch.com.

GNO filed a lawsuit in Colorado court (where the domain registrar is located) before the UDRP was decided. GNO asked for declaratory relief and a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

GNO recently filed a notice of settlement discussions and followed up with a notice of dismissal this week.

The Whois record for MomsTouch.com changed on March 2 when the domain name was transferred from Name.com to GoDaddy.com. This suggests that part of the settlement involved the chicken restaurant chain acquiring the domain from GNO.

Man drags Qatar Tourism Council to U.S. Court in domain dispute

by — Policy & Law 21 Comments

Qatar’s Tourism Council launched a fight over a domain name, and now it needs to defend itself in U.S. Court.

Picture of Doha, Qatar skyline

A man from Azerbaijan is suing the Qatar National Tourism Council—in Colorado.

Teymur Mehdiyev filed a lawsuit (pdf) in U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, after the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ordered that his domain VisitQatar.com be transferred to the tourism council.

The WIPO panel made this decision despite Mehdiyev having a registered trademark in the U.S. for “Visit Qatar”.

By filing the lawsuit, the domain name transfer will be stayed pending the outcome of the suit.

So why Colorado? When the tourism council filed the dispute, it agreed to submit to the jurisdiction where the domain name registrar is located. The domain name is registered with Name.com, a company in Denver.

Mehdiyev is asking the court to declare that his ownership of VisitQatar.com does not constitute cybersquatting. He’s also asking for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, which comes with a penalty as high as $100,000.

Now, Qatar’s tourism council must defend itself in U.S. court or it might find itself on the wrong end of a judgment.

Amazon sues “get rich quick” Fulfilled by Amazon course seller

by — Uncategorized 26 Comments

Amazon says consumers think there’s a connection between FBA course seller and Amazon.

Chart fro lawsuit showing Amazon.com trademarks with swooping arrow to the right compared to defendants logo with similar swooping arrow with a plane instead of arrow pointer

According to Amazon, the defendant’s logo on the right infringes on its trademarks.

Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) businesses are big business for many product sellers. Just about anyone can list products for sale on Amazon and take advantage of its huge audience as well as fast fulfillment.

These days, it seems like there are more businesses selling you a course on how to make money with FBA than there are actual sellers using FBA. (Okay, that’s an exaggeration.)

Now, Amazon is suing (pdf) one of them that it alleges is infringing on its trademarks with logos that are very similar to its own.

[Update: Amazon is also suing another group under similar allegations.]

The company filed its suit against Prime Global Source, LLC, Creating Wealth International, LLC, and several other companies it believes may be connected.

Amazon alleges that the defendants “persuade unwitting entrepreneurs to spend thousands of dollars on seminars and training programs of little, if any, value” and “By the time that students realize they have been taken advantage of, the limited refund period has expired and Defendants refuse further communication.”

The case is for trademark infringement, and Amazon alleges that the defendants are “misleading consumers into believing that they are affiliated with Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) by using logos that are confusingly similar or nearly identical to Amazon’s distinctive trademarks…” (See image above.)

Amazon claims that some customers of the defendants are contacting it under the impression that the companies are connected.

It cost $480,843 to defend IMI.com

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Costs of defending domain name in jury trial add up.

Jeffrey Black successfully defended his domain name IMI.com in court, but it cost a lot of money.

A filing by Black’s attorney reveals that the total billings to date are $480,843.

Black is asking the court (pdf) to force Irving Materials, the company that filed a UDRP against the domain, to pay the costs.

His attorney, Mike Rodenbaugh, outlined the saga in DNW Podcast #249. I’ve been following the case since a UDRP panelist awarded the domain to Irving Materials.

Black wasn’t aware of the UDRP case and was forced to turn to the courts to defend his domain name from the transfer. He won a jury trial, but at great monetary cost.

In addition to the legal costs, Black says he lost a venture funding deal because of the lawsuit.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News