Archive

Archive for the ‘Legal Issues’ Category

Domain Name Thief Sentenced to 5 years

July 22nd, 2011 Comments off

Back in November of 2009, Daniel Goncalves was indicted on charges that he had stolen the domain name p2p.com from domain name investor Marc Ostrofsky and Albe and Leslie Angel.  The details of the case and investigation were docmented in a story on DNN published in August 2009.

Although there have been other notable cases of domain names being stolen, most notable being Sex.com, this news marks the first time an individual has been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for a domain name theft.

According to the whois the domain p2p.com is now back in the Albe’s hands.  The domain name had been stolen and sold to a third party, NBA star Mark Madsen.  Madsen purchased the domain name in September of 2006 from Goncalves on Ebay for $150,000.

Goncalves plead guilty to the charges and was sentenced today in Superior Court Judge Stuart Piem in Union County, New Jersey.

In talking to the Albes in 2009 it was clear a lot of effort went in to tracking down this criminal and making the case stick. The diligent effort by the victims over the course of 5 years is notable enough, and I know that they agree that it took a team effort. Domain professionals Richard Lau, Ellen Rony and Josh Pelissero, as well as cyber-crime law enforcement effort by Detective Sergeant John Gorman and prosecutor Kenneth Sharpe led this case to the successful resolution.

Full press release available here.

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (8)


Advertisement
Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions


3M Sues Registrars, Webhosts and DNS Hosts for Cybersquatting over Gambling Domains

June 13th, 2011 Comments off

3M has filed a broad lawsuit naming a larger number of registrars, webhosts and dns hosts for cybersquatting and infringing on the company’s brands. The lawsuit is also filed against some individual domain names that include the letters “3M” and “mmm”. A large number of the sites named in the lawsuit appear to be gambling sites, some of them using a logo that looks quite similar to the 3M logo. Some example domains names in the suit are mmmbet.net, 3mbet.net, 3m-sportbetting.com and 3MBet-Thai.com.

[via George Kirikos]

See the full list of the entities and companies the suit was filed against after the jump.

Directi Internet Solutions PVT. LTD., Doe Number 1, Doe Number 10, Doe Number 11, Doe Number 2, Doe Number 3, Doe Number 4, Doe Number 5, Doe Number 6, Doe Number 7, Doe Number 8, Doe Number 9, Domains By Proxy, Inc., Godaddy.com, Inc., Name.com, Pang International Limited, Prolexic Technologies, Inc., Softlayer Technologies, Inc., Tiggee LLC, Web Commerce Communications Limited, 3mbet-th.com, 3mbet-th.net, 3mbet-thai.com, 3mbet-thai.net, 3mbet.net, 3mbetth.com, 3mbetth.net, 3mbetthai.net, 3mbetthal.com, 3mbkk.com, 3minter.com, 3minter.net, 3msoccer.com, 3msoccer.net, 3mthai.com, 3mthai888.com, 3mthailand-official.com, Asia Netcom Asia Pacific Ltd., Bluehost Inc., CAT Telecom Public Company Ltd., 168mmm.net, 3M Company, 3m-asia.com, 3m-casino.com, 3m-th.com, 3m-thai.com, 3m-thai.net, 3m-thailand.com, 3mbet-online.com, mmm998.net, mmmbet.net, mmmth.com, mmmth.net, mmmthai.net, mmmwin.net, thai3m.com, thai3m.net, thailand3m.net, thaimmm.net, mmm-th.com, mmm-th.net, mmm-thai.com, mmm-thai.net, mmm123.net, mmm2u.net, mmm333.net, mmm456.net, mmm789.net, mmm888.net

 

[via George Kirikos]mmmbet.net

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (7)


Advertisement
Tap into the most comprehensive Whois database
on the planet: Discover the details of a domain’s current ownership,
learn a domain’s pedigree and find all the domains ever owned by a
specific company or individual by accessing historical information from DomainTools.com.


RightHaven.com Taken Down for Invalid Whois

April 21st, 2011 Comments off

Righthaven LLC, a company that enforces licensing of content created by their clients, has in the past taken possession of domain names owned by alleged infringers. Recently a judge dismissed one of their claims on a defendant’s domain name.

Now it appears that GoDaddy, the domain registrar for the domain Righthaven.com, has taken down their domain for an invalid whois. According to ICANN rules domain owners are required to maintain valid whois information. Anyone can report an invalid whois record via the WDPRS system, which then passes on the complaint to the sponsoring registrar of the domain. The registrar would then attempt to contact the domain owner and ask them to verify/update their contact information. Should they not do so, the domain can be suspended or even deleted.

[via @rhvictims]

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (4)


Advertisement
Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions


US Government Seizes Poker Domains, Charges Principals

April 15th, 2011 Comments off

The US government seized the domains for Poker Stars, Absolute Poker, and Full Tilt Poker and charged the site principals with bank fraud, illegal gambling offenses and laundering billions in illegal gambling proceeds.

 

 

See the full press release after the jump

MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY CHARGES PRINCIPALS OF THREE LARGEST INTERNET POKER COMPANIES WITH BANK FRAUD, ILLEGAL GAMBLING OFFENSES AND LAUNDERING BILLIONS IN ILLEGAL GAMBLING PROCEEDS

Multi-Billion Dollar Civil Money Laundering And Forfeiture Action Also Filed

Internet Domain Names Used By The Poker Companies Seized

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and JANICE FEDARCYK, the Assistant-Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the unsealing of an Indictment today charging eleven defendants, including the founders of the three largest Internet poker companies doing business in the United States – PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker (the “Poker Companies”)- with bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling offenses. The United States also filed a civil money laundering and in rem forfeiture
complaint (the “Civil Complaint”) against the Poker Companies, their assets, and the assets of several payment processors for the Poker Companies. In addition, restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts utilized by the Poker Companies and their payment processors, and five Internet domain names used by the Poker Companies to host their illegal poker games were seized.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: “As charged, these defendants concocted an elaborate criminal fraud scheme, alternately tricking some U.S. banks and effectively
bribing others to assure the continued flow of billions in illegal gambling profits. Moreover, as we allege, in their zeal to circumvent the gambling laws, the defendants also engaged in
massive money laundering and bank fraud. Foreign firms that choose to operate in the United States are not free to flout the laws they don’t like simply because they can’t bear to be parted
from their profits.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK said: “These defendants, knowing full well that their business
with U.S. customers and U.S. banks was illegal, tried to stack
the deck. They lied to banks about the true nature of their
business. Then, some of the defendants found banks willing to
flout the law for a fee. The defendants bet the house that they
could continue their scheme, and they lost.”
According to the Indictment and the Civil Complaint
unsealed today:
On October 13, 2006, the United States enacted the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), making it a
federal crime for gambling businesses to “knowingly accept” most
forms of payment “in connection with the participation of another
person in unlawful Internet gambling.” Despite the passage of
UIGEA, the Poker Companies, located offshore, continued operating
in the United States. In a press release dated October 16, 2006,
Absolute Poker announced that the company would continue its U.S.
operations because “the U.S. Congress has no control over” the
company’s payment transactions.
Because U.S. banks and credit card issuers were largely
unwilling to process their payments, the Poker Companies
allegedly used fraudulent methods to circumvent federal law and
trick these institutions into processing payments on their
behalf. For example, defendants ISAI SCHEINBERG and PAUL TATE of
PokerStars, RAYMOND BITAR and NELSON BURTNICK of Full Tilt Poker,
and SCOTT TOM and BRENT BECKLEY of Absolute Poker, arranged for
the money received from U.S. gamblers to be disguised as payments
to hundreds of non-existent online merchants purporting to sell
merchandise such as jewelry and golf balls. Of the billions of
dollars in payment transactions that the Poker Companies tricked
U.S. banks into processing, approximately one-third or more of
the funds went directly to the Poker Companies as revenue through
the “rake” charged to players on almost every poker hand played
online.
As alleged in the Indictment, to accomplish their
fraud, the Poker Companies worked with an array of highly
compensated “payment processors” – including defendants RYAN
LANG, IRA RUBIN, BRADLEY FRANZEN, and CHAD ELIE – who obtained
-2accounts
at U. S. banks for the Poker Companies. The payment
processors lied to banks about the nature of the financial
transactions they were processing, and covered up those lies, by,
among other things, creating phony corporations and websites to
disguise payments to the Poker Companies. For example, a
PokerStars document from May 2009 acknowledged that they received
money from U.S. gamblers through company names that “strongly
imply the transaction has nothing to do with PokerStars,” and
that PokerStars used whatever company names “the processor can
get approved by the bank.”
By late 2009, after U.S. banks and financial
institutions detected and shut down multiple fraudulent bank
accounts used by the Poker Companies, SCHEINBERG and BITAR
developed a new processing strategy that would not involve lying
to banks. PokerStars, FullTilt Poker, and their payment
processors persuaded the principals of a few small, local banks
facing financial difficulties to engage in such processing in
return for multi-million dollar investments in the banks. For
example, in September 2009, ELIE and others approached defendant
JOHN CAMPOS, the Vice Chairman of the Board and part-owner of
SunFirst Bank, a small, private bank based in Saint George, Utah,
about processing Internet poker transactions. While expressing
“trepidations,” CAMPOS allegedly agreed to process gambling
transactions in return for a $10 million investment in SunFirst
by ELIE and an associate, which would give them a more than 30%
ownership stake in the bank. CAMPOS also requested and received
a $20,000 “bonus” for his assistance. In an e-mail, one of
ELIE’s associates boasted that they had “purchased” SunFirst and
that they “were looking to purchase” “a grand total of 3 or 4
banks” to process payments.
The Indictment and Civil Complaint seek at least $3
billion in civil money laundering penalties and forfeiture from
the Poker Companies and the defendants. The District Court
issued an order restraining approximately 76 bank accounts in 14
countries containing the proceeds of the charged offenses.
Pursuant to a warrant for arrest in rem issued by the U.S.
District Court, the United States also seized five Internet
domain names used by the Poker Companies to operate their illegal
online businesses in the United States.
* * *
Defendants CAMPOS and ELIE were arrested this morning
in Saint George, Utah and Las Vegas, Nevada, respectively. ELIE
will appear later today before a U. S. Magistrate Court Judge in
Las Vegas, Nevada. CAMPOS will appear before a U.S. Magistrate
-3Court
Judge in Saint George, Utah on April 18, 2011. Defendant
FRANZEN is expected to appear for his arraignment on April 19,
2011 in the Southern District of New York. Defendants BITAR,
SCHEINBERG, BURTNICK, TATE, TOM, BECKLEY, RUBIN and LANG are not
presently in the United States and have not yet been arrested.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
is working with foreign law enforcement agencies and Interpol to
secure the arrest of these defendants and the seizure of criminal
proceeds located abroad. BITAR, TOM, RUBIN, BECKLEY, CAMPOS,
ELIE, and FRANZEN are U. S. citizens. A chart identifying each
defendant, the charges, and the maximum penalties, is attached to
this release.
U.S.
Attorney PREET BHARARA praised the FBI for its
outstanding leadership in the investigation, which he noted is
ongoing. Mr. BHARARA also thanked Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s New York and New Jersey offices, and the Washington
State Gambling Commission, for their assistance in the
investigation.
The matters announced today are being handled by the
Office’s Complex Frauds and Asset Forfeiture Units. Assistant
U.S.
Attorneys ARLO DEVLIN-BROWN and NICOLE FRIEDLANDER are in
charge of the criminal case, and Assistant U. S. Attorneys SHARON
COHEN LEVIN, MICHAEL LOCKARD and JASON COWLEY are in charge of
the civil money laundering and forfeiture actions.
The charges contained in the Indictment and Civil
Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed
innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Press Release: Manhatten US Attorney Charges Principals of Three Largest Internet Poker Companies (PDF)

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (7)


Advertisement
DomainConvergence 2011, May 12-13, Montreal, Canada


ICE Accidentally Takes Down 84,000 Websites

February 17th, 2011 Comments off

As reported before, the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has taken to seizing domain names when it sees potential copyright infringement or other unlawful items. On February 15th, as part of their “Operation Protect Our Children”, they seized another ten domain names. According to Torrentfreak, this included the domain mooo.com, which is used to operate some 84,000 sub domain sites through the Free DNS service. Apparently the ICE had discovered a child pornography site hosted on one of the sub domains. DotWeekly also reported this earlier.

It appears the domain mooo.com had its previous nameservers restored at the time of writing this, but for two days they displayed a message saying that the domain was seized due to child pornography.

[via ZDnet]

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (3)


Advertisement

We buy Domains!
We are interested in Acquiring your premium domains!
Click here to submit your domains now.


American Airlines Sunrise Application to Register aa.co.uk Rated “Invalid”

January 12th, 2011 Comments off

In the currently ongoing Nominet Sunrise phase for the release of “reserved short domains” (single and double letter of third level .uk) domain names (DNN reported previously) American Airlines missed out on getting aa.co.uk during the Sunrise phase.

According to the sunrise whois, there were four applications for the domain name so far:

  • American Airlines, Inc
  • Andrews & Arnold Ltd
  • The Automobile Association Limited
  • Anthony Hill

The American Airlines application has been rejected as “INVALID”, the application from “Andrews & Arnold” has been validated. The latter two applications are still pending validation. The sunrise phase closes for applications on January 17th.

While the UK trademark does pre-date 2008 as required (Filing date is 14 Aug 1998), it appears that American Airlines failed to submit proof of trademark use prior to 2008. As DNN understands they will have a chance to re-apply to have their trademark validated.

[Thank you Hakan and ScottJ]

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (6)


Advertisement
DomainConvergence 2011, May 12-13, Montreal, Canada


Groupon Addresses Australian Cybersquatting Problem

January 5th, 2011 Comments off

Groupon has addressed a question in their blog titled Why Groupon Isn’t in Australia. The short answer is a cybersquatter / competitor has registered Groupon.com.au and the Groupon Pty Ltd business name as well as filed for a trademark for Groupon.

The cybersquatter is Scoopon, a Groupon clone, which is owned by two brothers, Gabby and Hezi Leibovitch. This doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident either.  The brothers also own Woot.com.au and redirect it to a site similar to Woot.com (a deal of the day site owned by Amazon).  Their list continues with owning DealExtreme.com.au, DealExtreme.com is a popular deals site in the US, which redirects to their own deal website.  Andrew Mason doesn’t express as much concern about the cloning issue, but the trademark infringement seems to cross a line.

Andrew Mason writes:

“The way we see things, this is a classic case of domain squatting – an unfortunate reality of the Internet business. As Groupon became internationally known, opportunistic domain squatters around the world started to buy local Groupon domain names, thinking that we’d eventually be forced to buy them at an insane price. In fact, we tried to do just that, reluctantly offering Gabby and Hezi Leibovich about $286,000 for the Groupon.com.au domain and trademark—an offer they accepted. But now they’ve changed their minds, and we believe that they’ll only sell us the domain and trademark if we’re willing to buy the entire Scoopon business from them. Left with no other options, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Scoopon, claiming that their Groupon trademark was filed in bad faith (amongst other things).”

Despite believing they could win the lawsuit, they still offered $286,000 for the domain name and trademark. The cost of litigation and the amount of time it would take to resolve the dispute before they could start building a business using their own name must have been factored into that price. Mason states it could take ‘over a year to resolve.’

Ultimately, Mason announces Groupon is filing a lawsuit against Scoopon and launching in Australia under the name a temporary name: Stardeals. His final message is directed towards Scoopon stating the $286,000 offer is still on the table and asks users to help persuade Scoopon to accept their original deal.

What do you think? Is trying to pay off the alleged cybersquatter for $286,000 is a savvy business move or sending the wrong message and encouraging others to follow suit?

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com (1)


Advertisement

We buy Domains!
We are interested in Acquiring your premium domains!
Click here to submit your domains now.


Cyrillic ccTLD Launch Overshadowed by Legal Dispute

November 25th, 2010 Comments off

As reported earlier the Cyrillic .РФ IDN ccTLD launch had reached a stunning number of 500,000 registrations in the first week. Considering the numbers, it was obvious that speculators were playing the TLD, but apparently six registrars are involved in registering many of the names for resale & auction and are now involved in a legal dispute as reported by TheMoscowNews. Many of the registered names have been frozen by the registry.

The accused registrar, RU-Center said there are no plans to stop sales, with spokesman Andrei Vorobyov saying: “We do not believe we have violated the law or the rules of the co-ordinating centre.”At the end of last week the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS) launched legal action against six registrars claiming they had broken competition laws.

Apparently the RU-Center itself bought 38% of the names registered and acquired another 48% of the registered domains through partner companies – a total of 86%.

[via TheMoscowNews & DomainIncite]

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com (2)


Advertisement
DomainConvergence 2011, May 12-13, Montreal, Canada


Frank Schilling’s NAI Wins Settlement over ChiliBeans.com UDRP

November 3rd, 2010 Comments off

While the loss of the UDRP over ChiliBeans.com at the end of 2008 was certainly bad news for Frank Schilling’s Name Administration Inc. (NAI), Schilling did not sit still, but fought back. Now, after the suit made its way through the court of the Cayman Islands the result is a significant (but non-disclosed) settlement payment to NAI, acknowledging the generic nature of the domain name.

Both parties have agreed that NAI’s use of the generic Chillibeans.com domain name violated no enforceable rights of Balglow Finance. The settlement of this dispute will see NAI transfer title of this generic name to Balglow Finance to assist it in its online efforts relating to Balglow Finance’s expansion of the “Chilli Beans” brand of eyewear.

“While it’s unfortunate that this dispute necessitated a trip to the Cayman Court, we are most pleased to have resolved the matter in such a mutually beneficial way”, Frank Schilling MD for NAI told DNN. He continued, “NAI’s only interest in the domain name was as a generic term. Now that it’s been settled that NAI’s registration and use of the domain name violated no rights of Balglow Finance we are pleased to facilitate the transfer, as the domain name is beneficial in advancing the business of Balglow Fianance, and while valuable to NAI, has less long term value to our company”".

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com


Advertisement

We buy Domains!
We are interested in Acquiring your premium domains!
Click here to submit your domains now.


Oversee Settles “Halvarez” Class Action and Nelson Brady Suit

October 26th, 2010 Comments off

The class action case Resmer vs. SnapNames.com has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement, the class members will be given the same rebates that were issued by Oversee last November. The rebate offer has been extended to all class members until December 17, 2010. More details can be found at the website www.snapsettlement.com

I think you could call this the best news Oversee could have received on this class action. Clearly, the company handled the clean up well early on by issuing these rebates to all affected customers.  If they hadn’t there may have been a more enticing settlement for these class action members.

The company also has settled their case with Nelson Brady, aka Halvarez, but terms of this settlement were not provided.

Oversee.net press release can be seen after the jump

SnapNames and its parent company, Oversee.net, have reached a preliminary settlement of Resmer vs. SnapNames.com and Oversee.net, a class action filing arising from a former employee’s improper bidding activity on the SnapNames platform. The action was filed in California shortly after SnapNames announced its rebate program for affected customers last November.

Under this settlement:

· Class members (which are United States residents who were extended the rebate offer but have not yet accepted) have been or shortly will be notified of the settlement terms and amounts (which are identical to the amounts affected bidders were offered in the rebate offer we extended last November).
· Though our rebate program officially expires November 4, 2010, the deadline to make a claim as a member of the class is December 17, 2010.
· Unless a class member opts out of the settlement, that member is bound by the settlement terms, which include a release of all further claims against SnapNames and Oversee relating to the “Halvarez” matter.
· SnapNames has created and adopted a formal policy regarding inappropriate bidding activity, and will make annual reports available to SnapNames customers regarding any reports or investigations of inappropriate bidding.
· Unclaimed proceeds from the class settlement will be donated to charitable organizations and industry causes.

Class members can download instructions and a claim form at www.snapsettlement.com.

Separately, we have also resolved our outstanding claim against Nelson Brady, the former employee responsible for this activity. While terms of the settlement are not public and will not be disclosed, Oversee believes the financial penalty is appropriate considering the seriousness of the improper activity.

Statement from Jeff Kupietzky, CEO of Oversee.net

“While this has been an unfortunate situation for SnapNames and its customers and employees, we’re proud of the faith our customers have shown us in the past year. We’re pleased to have these matters settled and are moving on with our business and our focus on serving customers.”

Context

· In October 2009, Oversee discovered an employee, Nelson Brady, using an account under the false name “Hank Alvarez,” engaged in improper bidding activities in domain name auctions on the SnapNames platform.
· Oversee and SnapNames disclosed the situation to its customers and employees in November 2009. Oversee made available to affected customers a cash rebate in the amount of the calculated overpayment, plus 5.22% interest (the highest applicable federal rate during the affected time period).
· Since November 2009, approximately 84% of the aggregate rebate amount has been claimed by impacted parties. Including the class action settlement, SnapNames will have made more than $2 million available to impacted customers.


Categories: External Articles, Legal Issues Tags: