Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Clinton Sparks wins domain name back

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Grammy-nominated Clinton Sparks gets domain name back after it expired.

Screenshot of a fake profle on ClintonSparks.com

Clinton Sparks? Not really. Just an attempt to game the search engines.

DJ, producer and songwriter Clinton Sparks has won the rights to the domain name ClintonSparks.com, which expired after a dispute with his agent.

Sparks and his Get Familiar Music Company registered the domain in 2002 and the agent let it lapse in 2017.

A Ukranian SEO expert then registered the domain name and put up a fake profile of a University of Pennslyvania professor (see image). The profile picture is actually of an American University professor.

The fake profile on ClintonSparks.com links to two sites: UPENN.edu and an academic essay writing service. It seems that the domain owner registered this domain based on its SEO value, and then used the fake site to bolster its backlink profile. The site was designed to confuse search engines.

With the help of attorney John Berryhill, Sparks and Get Familiar Music filed a UDRP with National Arbitration Forum. Berryhill rarely represents Complainants, but he chooses interesting cases when he does.

Clothing company fails to upgrade domain name through UDRP

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Clothing company goes after shorter domain name through UDRP.

Image of LittleJonesiesCo.com website showing kids clothes

This clothing company tried to upgrade its domain from LittleJonesiesCo.com to LittleJonesies.com through UDRP. It failed.

A kids and women’s clothing company has lost a cybersquatting dispute against the domain LittleJonesies.com, which is owned by someone with the last name Jones.

The Complainant, Little Jonesies LLC, uses the domain name LittleJonesiesCo.com.

David Jones of Idaho registered the domain in January 2016.

Little Jonesies LLC filed trademarks for the term in 2017 but claimed first use in commerce of 2015.

Interestingly, the company didn’t register its own domain name until April 2016, after LittleJonesies.com was registered. It might have just been using third-party ecommece platforms like Etsy without its own domain name.

In its complaint, the clothing seller didn’t address the fact that the registrant’s last name is Jones, which is a decent tip-off that it might have rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

Jones didn’t make a formal reply in the case but said he registered the domain with plans to start a business. He could have just as easily said he registered it because he has kids and it would suffice as a legitimate interest.

The Complainant also failed to provide any evidence that the domain was used in bad faith. It resolved to an error page at the time the complaint was filed.

Panelist David H. Bernstein did not consider reverse domain name hijacking. Thorpe North & Western LLP represented the Complainant.

Sports equipment company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Panel finds Singapore company brought case in abuse of UDRP.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found Sport and Fashion, Pte. Ltd., a sports equipment/apparel company, guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

The company filed a cybersquatting complaint against the domain demix.com. It markets a brand called Demix.

Canadian company St. Lawrence Cement Inc owns the domain name. It markets cement products under the Demix brand.

The cement company registered the domain in 1998, well before the Complainant had any trademark rights to the term.

Based on the panel decision, it appears the Complainant might have copied-and-pasted information from another UDRP filing into this one:

The Complaint appears to have been prepared with very little attention to detail and as noted above includes erroneous references to a completely unrelated trademark. Once the intended respondent was identified as being a Canadian company likely to be involved in the cement business (given its name), it ought to have been obvious to the Complainant that the Respondent was likely to have independently coined the Disputed Domain Name. If the Complainant was in any way unclear on this issue, a few minutes Internet searching would have found the Respondent’s present web sites at for example “www.demixbeton.ca”. Similarly a search of the Canadian Trademarks Registry would have found a number of DEMIX-related trademarks predating the Complainant’s trademark – whilst these are in various corporate names this should nevertheless have alerted the Complainant to the potential difficulties with its case.

 

The Chronicle of Higher Education defends LinguaFranca.com domain

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Man files cybersquatting complaint in an effort to revive Lingua Franca brand.

Magazine cover of Lingua Franca, a defunct literary and academic publication

A blast from the past for academics.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication covering academia, has successfully defended the domain name LinguaFranca.com in cybersquatting dispute.

Lingua Franca was a competitor that went bankrupt. In 2002, The Chronicle for Higher Education acquired rights to Lingua Franca and its trademark through the bankruptcy court. Since then, it has forwarded the domain to its website.

Enter John Summers, a man who wants to relaunch the publication. He obtained a U.S. trademark registration for the term and wants the domain name.

He tried to buy the domain from The Chronicle for $100 but was rebuffed. So he filed a cybersquatting complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Summers apparently didn’t hire a lawyer to file the case, and it shows. Any good cybersquatting lawyer would have told him that he didn’t have a case. It’s clear that The Chronicle originally acquired the domain name in good faith. UDRP requires that the Complainant show that it was registered and used in bad faith.

William R. Towns, a UDRP panelist for World Intellectual Property Organization, dutifully found in The Chronicle’s favor.

A fight over descriptive skateboard domain names

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Company with descriptive domain name tries to get the singular version of the name through UDRP.

Picture of skateboard with words "Skateboard Fight"

Mimic Skateboards Inc., a skateboard seller that uses the domain name CustomSkateboards.com, has lost a UDRP it filed against the domain name CustomSkateboard.com (singular). The World Intellectual Property Organization panelist did not find reverse domain name hijacking, however.

The domain name is owned by Point Distribution, another company that sells custom skateboards.

Panelist Scott Blackmer included a lengthy discussion of facts in the case, including how the Complainant is trying to get trademarks for CustomSkateboards.com. One of the applications is for a stylized mark and states that “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘CUSTOMSKATEBOARDS.COM’ apart from the mark as shown.”

Given the facts and descriptive nature of the domain name, I’m surprised that Blackmer did not find reverse domain name hijacking after considering it. He merely denied the claim because the domain wasn’t registered and used in bad faith.

Lewis & Lin represented Mimic Skateboards. The firm is well versed in domain name law and UDRP, and I’m surprised it filed this case.