Archive

Archive for the ‘Legal’ Category

Arena Football’s OrlandoPredators.com Gets Lost In Sale & Now Points To Sexual Offenders

July 18th, 2014 Comments off

The arena Football team the Orlando Predators was recently sold and the one thing that seem to have gotten lost in the sale is its domain name.

According to a story in the orlandosentinel.com, the domain which served as the previous official site of the team OrlandoPredators.com now redirects visitors to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s archive of sexual offenders and predators.

It seems the domain name was not in the name of the team or the league but in the name of the previous managing partner of the team David Pearsall.

The team just found out about the issue the day before the new owner of the team named a new President Jared Saft.

“Our initial reaction was to reach out to the league,” Saft said. “We’re really disappointed. He’s potentially harming fans and children who are trying to get information on the team.

“When you register a domain, you represent that you’re not infringing on a trademark. Well, he’s infringing on a trademark.”

The league agrees. “It’s unfortunate that previous ownership did not handle this differently, but the appropriate legal action has been commenced and we are confident that the Predators’ brand will remain as strong as ever,” AFL Commissioner Jerry B. Kurz said in a statement to the Orlando Sentinel.

Saft said a complaint has been filed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit organization responsible for regulating domain names, among other things.

“We think that domain belongs with the team; It’s pretty clear,” Saft said. “The current owner will face the justice of misinforming the public.”

While the team works to regain control of its former domain, it launched a new website called MyOrlandoPredators.com.

“A fully-functional website, on whatever domain name the team ends up with, should be up and running within the next 30 to 45 days.”

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags:

Arena Football’s OrlandoPredators.com Gets Lost In Sale & Now Points To Sexual Offenders

July 18th, 2014 Comments off

The arena Football team the Orlando Predators was recently sold and the one thing that seem to have gotten lost in the sale is its domain name.

According to a story in the orlandosentinel.com, the domain which served as the previous official site of the team OrlandoPredators.com now redirects visitors to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s archive of sexual offenders and predators.

It seems the domain name was not in the name of the team or the league but in the name of the previous managing partner of the team David Pearsall.

The team just found out about the issue the day before the new owner of the team named a new President Jared Saft.

“Our initial reaction was to reach out to the league,” Saft said. “We’re really disappointed. He’s potentially harming fans and children who are trying to get information on the team.

“When you register a domain, you represent that you’re not infringing on a trademark. Well, he’s infringing on a trademark.”

The league agrees. “It’s unfortunate that previous ownership did not handle this differently, but the appropriate legal action has been commenced and we are confident that the Predators’ brand will remain as strong as ever,” AFL Commissioner Jerry B. Kurz said in a statement to the Orlando Sentinel.

Saft said a complaint has been filed with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit organization responsible for regulating domain names, among other things.

“We think that domain belongs with the team; It’s pretty clear,” Saft said. “The current owner will face the justice of misinforming the public.”

While the team works to regain control of its former domain, it launched a new website called MyOrlandoPredators.com.

“A fully-functional website, on whatever domain name the team ends up with, should be up and running within the next 30 to 45 days.”

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags:

After Losing MyArt.com in UDRP, Fed Court Awards Owner Domain + Damages + Attorney Fees

July 17th, 2014 Comments off

According to a post on the site of the law firm Lewis & Lin, the domain owner of MyArt.com who lost a UDRP in April, filed a lawsuit in federal court and not only stopped the transfer of the domain name but got an award of statutory damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

We wrote about the UDRP back in April of this year and noted it was the 2nd UDRP filed by the same complaint on the same domain.

David Lin, Esq. writing on his firm’s site in a post entitled: “Reverse Domain Hijacking Defendants Consent to Judgement” says:

Reverse Domain Hijacking Defendants Consent to Judgement – See more at: http://www.ilawco.com/blog/reverse-domain-hijacking-myart.html#sthash.KXCiEDeU.dpuf

“After losing a UDRP proceeding by default, the owners of MyArt.com retained Lewis & Lin to stop the transfer of the domain name under ICANN rules.

Lewis & Lin immediately filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against My Art SAS, a French company engaged in the sale of artwork, and its principal shareholder. Our complaint sought relief for reverse domain name hijacking under the Lanham Act, as well as related state unfair competition claims.

Barely a month after being served with the complaint, defendants issued an offer of judgment consenting to all of the declaratory relief that we sought on behalf of our client.

Defendants also offered a monetary judgment in an amount that included statutory damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The offer of judgment was accepted and judgment was entered in favor of our client.

This case illustrates that a UDRP loss has absolutely no bearing on subsequent litigation between the same parties and the same domain name. A UDRP panel’s decision, which is not based on U.S. trademark law, will be entitled to no deference, and will have no preclusive effect in a federal court case. For domain name registrants who fall victim to the efforts of reverse domain hijackers attempting to seize a domain in the UDRP process, there is hope to recover a hijacked domain.

Simply by filing a federal lawsuit and requiring the attempted hijacker to defend their actions, a domain name registrant can keep what’s rightfully theirs. For more information on reverse domain hijacking and the UDRP, contact David Lin at Lewis & Lin LLC.”

We are thrilled that a domain name owner stood up for his rights, took the horrible UDRP decision to court and not only quickly got the transfer of the domain name stopped but also got damages, attorney fees and costs.

Big congrats to

 

Categories: Domains, External Articles, Legal, udrp Tags:

Google Wants Your Opinion On How They Should Implement “Right To Be Forgotten”

July 11th, 2014 Comments off

Google’s Advisory Council is asking the public on how they should implement the EU court required “Right to be Forgotten”

The question Google is asking is:

“How should one person’s right to be forgotten be balanced with the public’s right to know?”

“”A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union found that European law gives people the right to ask search engines like Google to remove results for queries that include their name.

Since then, we’ve received removal requests on all sorts of content: serious criminal records, embarrassing photos, instances of online bullying and name-calling, decades-old allegations, negative press stories, and more.

For each of these requests, we’re required to weigh, on a case-by-case basis, an individual’s right to be forgotten with the public’s right to know.

We want to strike this balance right. This obligation is a new and difficult challenge for us, and we’re seeking advice on the principles Google ought to apply when making decisions on individual cases. That’s why we’re convening a council of experts.

We’re just getting started, but during this process we also want to hear your input, too — this is all about your rights online, and the Internet provides an incredible forum for discussion and debate.””

If you want to share your opinion with Google on this very important issue please click here

 

Categories: External Articles, google, Legal Tags:

USPTO Grants Two Patents On DNS including “Systems & Methods for Providing DNS Services”

July 2nd, 2014 Comments off

Two Patents were granted yesterday by the USPTO on DNS

Nominum, Inc received a patent on Systems and methods for providing DNS services

A system for providing a Domain Name System (DNS) service may include providing an agent for installation on a subscriber device. The subscriber device may be connected to the DNS service via an entry point device. The system includes receiving, from the agent, agent data indicative of a subscriber identifier and a unique identifier associated with the entry point device. The system may then determine, based on the agent data, a current Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the entry point device and associate the unique identifier with the subscriber identifier. The system may then dynamically map the subscriber identifier to the current IP address and provide DNS service to the subscriber device based on the current IP address.
July 01, 2014
#8769060

The second Patent granted yesterday to Limelight Networks, Inc.; is for a
Domain name service resolver

A domain name service (DNS) resolver returns Internet protocol (IP) addresses.

A connection with an Internet application or device receives domain name resolution requests that originate outside of the Internet.

A direct DNS resolver identifies IP addresses without referring to the Internet or using other DNS resolvers. An address store includes a predetermined list of domain names and corresponding IP addresses specified from a point remote to the DNS resolver.

The DNS resolver processes the domain name resolutions for the predetermined list of domain names differently than domain name resolutions for other domain names not on the predetermined list of domain names. At least part of the predetermined list is pushed to a destination upon receiving a resolution request for a domain name in the predetermined list of domain names, the request being of a type other than an authoritative resolution request to be performed by the direct DNS resolver.

July 01, 2014
#8769118

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags:

Microsoft Seizes 22 Domains Of No­-IP Based Off Of SubDomain Usage & Millions Of Uses Effected

July 1st, 2014 Comments off

No­-IP a DNS service company told its customers on its company blog yesterday, that Microsoft has gotten a federal court order seizing 22 of its domain names based on the activity of users on some of the subdomains.

According to arstechnica.com, “Millions of legitimate servers that rely on dynamic domain name services from No-IP.com suffered outages on Monday after Microsoft seized 22 domain names it said were being abused in malware-related crimes against Windows users.”

“In a complaint Microsoft filed under seal on June 19, Microsoft attorneys said No-IP is “functioning as a major hub for 245 different types of malware circulating on the Internet.” The document said abuse of the service has been the subject of recent blog posts by both OpenDNS and Cisco Systems.

“Although Defendant Vitalwerks is on notice and should be aware that its services are heavily abused, it has failed to take sufficient steps to correct, remedy, or prevent the abuse and to keep its domains free from malicious activity,” the attorneys wrote. In addition to naming No-IP, the complaint also charged two men who allegedly used No-IP to work with Bladabindi and Jenxcus control servers. More documents filed in the case are available here.”

According to krebsonsecurity.com, Microsoft  to go after 2,000 or so bad sites, has taken down four million.

Here is the blog post from No-IP:

“We want to update all our loyal customers about the service outages that many of you are experiencing today. It is not a technical issue.”

“This morning, Microsoft served a federal court order and seized 22 of our most commonly used domains because they claimed that some of the subdomains have been abused by creators of malware. ”

“We were very surprised by this. We have a long history of proactively working with other companies when cases of alleged malicious activity have been reported to us.”

“Unfortunately, Microsoft never contacted us or asked us to block any subdomains, even though we have an open line of communication with Microsoft corporate executives.”

“We have been in contact with Microsoft today.”

“They claim that their intent is to only filter out the known bad hostnames in each seized domain, while continuing to allow the good hostnames to resolve. ”

“However, this is not happening.”

“Apparently, the Microsoft infrastructure is not able to handle the billions of queries from our customers. Millions of innocent users are experiencing outages to their services because of Microsoft’s attempt to remediate hostnames associated with a few bad actors.”

“Had Microsoft contacted us, we could and would have taken immediate action.”

“Microsoft now claims that it just wants to get us to clean up our act, but its draconian actions have affected millions of innocent Internet users.”

Sands Files Lawsuit Against 35 Websites/Domains Including 368.COM, 8227.COM & 9770.COM,

June 28th, 2014 Comments off

Screen Shot 2014-06-28 at 3.26.35 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Las Vegas Sands Corp. (Sands) filed a federal lawsuit on Friday in the United States District Court for the District Of Nevada against the owners of 35 websites/domain names including 368.COM, 8227.COM and 9770.COM.

The suit alleges that the unknown registrants of thirty-five Internet domain names who are using Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s world famous “Sands” trademark, “Jinsha” Chinese characters ( 金沙, meaning roughly, “golden sand” and which is the Chinese equivalent of the “Sands” trademark,) on websites to falsely affiliate themselves with Las Vegas Sands Corp., to lure prospective gamblers to overseas online casinos, and to unlawfully and in bad faith advertise, promote, and provide online casino services and gambling services.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. sued for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as claims for common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition.

The Las Vegas Sands Corp. seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Here are the relevant allegations from the lawsuit

Defendants have set up a network of Chinese language Internet websites (all of which are accessible to U.S. citizens) designed to drive Internet users to one or more online casinos. These websites are located at thirty-five Internet domains:

368.com

8227.com

9770.com

22v.com

vns000.com

vns002.com

vns003.com

vns004.com

vns005.com

vns006.com

vns007.com

vns008.com

vns009.com

vn008.com

666cp.com

xjs00.com

xjs11.com

xjs22.com

xjs33.com

xjs44.com

xjs55.com

xjs66.com

xjs77.com

xjs88.com

xjs99.com

vns95500.com

vns95511.com

vns95522.com

vns95533.com

vns95544.com

vns95555.com

vns95566.com

vns95577.com

vns95588.com

vns95599.com

The Sands Alleges their identities are unknown because the domain names were registered using a “privacy protection” service offered by eNom, Inc. or Name.com, Inc., through Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. or by GoDaddy.com, Inc. through its affiliate DomainsByProxy, LLC.

These companies register domain names without listing the registrant’s true name, email address, or contact information in the publicly available “WHOIS” database of domain name registrants.

The extent of the Defendants’ network of domain names and gambling websites is presently unknown.

To date, however, Las Vegas Sands Corp. has discovered two “directory sites.” These sites are located at 368.com and vns000.com (or 22v.com).

The use of Plaintiff’s marks was no accident. The website is clearly intended to refer to Plaintiff’s world famous resort hotel, as it shows a skyline view of Marina Bay Sands Hotel in Singapore.

The SANDS Marks are embodiments of the substantial goodwill and excellent reputation Las Vegas Sands Corp. and its predecessors have developed since 1952 as a premierprovider of entertainment and casino services. Asa result of the Defendants’ blatant exploitation of Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s trademarks without Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s consent, Las Vegas Sands Corp. has lost control over the SANDS Mark

This loss of control over its goodwill and reputation is irreparable and Las Vegas Sands Corp. cannot be adequately compensated by an award of money damages alone.

As just one example makes clear, while Las Vegas Sands Corp. is a strong supporter of the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, and is presently engaged in publicity and lobbying campaigns aimed at defeating measures that would legalize Internet gambling in the United States and elsewhere,the Defendants’ use of the SANDS Marks on the homepages of online casinos, even though unauthorized by Las Vegas Sands Corp., threatens to dilute and detract from Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s message and its efforts to stop the proliferation of online gambling.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ actions have caused and are likely to continue to cause Las Vegas Sands Corp. to suffer irreparable harm and injury unless temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined by the Court.

The Sands is asking the Court for A temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and/or all ot her persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants, from:

(1) using the SANDS Marks, or any confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, letter string, phrases or designs in commerce, including, without limitation,on any website, in any domain name, in any social network user name, in any hidden website text, or in any website metatag;

and

(2) engaging in false or misleading advertising or commercial activities likely to deceive consumers into believing that any Defendant is the Plaintiff or that any Defendant’s services are associated or affiliated with, connected to, or approved sponsored by the Plaintiff;

An order requiring domain name registrars eNom, Inc., Name.com, Inc., GoDaddy.com, Inc., and/or VeriSign, Inc. (the.com domain name registry) to immediately remove or disable the current domain name server information for each of the domain names and place the domain names on hold and lock pending further order of the Court.

Award of compensatory, consequential, statutory, and/or punitive damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial;

An award of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in prosecuting this action; and

All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled

The case number is  2:14-cv-01049.
~

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags:

MyRedbook.com Seized By Feds & Owners Arrested

June 26th, 2014 Comments off

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 11.21.36 AM

According to Sfgate.com,  two San Fransisco based websites MyRedbook.com and sfredbook.com were seized by the federal government yesterday.

The alleged operators of the sites, Eric Omuro, and Annmarie Lanoce, were arrested Wednesday.

“Omuro was charged with 24 counts of money laundering in connection with alleged transfers of the website’s revenue into bank accounts.

“Federal authorities are seeking to seize $5.4 million in cash and property from Omuro and Lanoce, the alleged windfall from the operation since April 2010.”

The website allegedly allowed sex workers to advertise their services for free and customers to rank their experiences. It purported to offer escorts, dancers and other adult entertainment.

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags:

This Is Why There Needs To Be A Penalty For Someone Bringing A Groundless URS

June 16th, 2014 Comments off

Talk about a waste of time and money.

You probably will never find a better case for providing a penalty for someone who brings a groundless Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proceeding than this one.

As you may know unlike the UDRP which at least carries a potential “penalty” in the form of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) a URS carries no similar “penalty”

In this case the URS involved a three letter generic new gTLD domain.

The domain name Bas.Graphics was registered by QA Graphics of Ankeny, IA.

The Complaint was brought by BAS Services & Graphics, LLC. of Austin, TX, not exactly a household name.

The URS examiner, Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, gave the complaint a swift kick out of the door finding that the Complainant didn’t even have a registered trademark much less a trademark submitted to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) but instead showed up with its 2011 Name Certificate filed with the State of Texas ; its 2014 Florida Limited Liability Company Annual Report; its Articles of Organization; and its Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for “Building Automation Systems Service.

The examiner correctly found that “None of these documents constitute a valid national or regional word mark registration. Complainant has not provided any evidence to satisfy the first limb of the URS. It follows that the Complaint must be denied on these grounds alone.”

However the The Examiner went further to find the Registrant “has been providing services relating to BAS graphics since 2006 and therefore has a legitimate right or interest to the domain and Complainant has failed to establish the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.”

“”””Respondent contends, as Complainant possesses no relevant trade mark rights, as the incident of consumer confusion relied upon by Complainant predated the date of registration of the domain name, as BAS graphics is a generic term, and as Respondent has been successful in relation to BAS graphics, these proceedings have been brought in order to harass Respondent, and constitute an abuse of the proceedings.

“It appears the proceedings have been brought under the misapprehension that Complainant can rely on common law rights, including Complainant’s various company registration documents. The evidence does however show that Complainant possesses prior common law rights in the term BAS graphics, if nothing else, by virtue of Complainant’s prior registration of the domain name .

“In all the circumstances, the Examiner is not prepared to make a finding that the Complaint is an abuse of the proceedings or that the Complaint contained material falsehoods.”

Categories: External Articles, Legal, URS Tags:

After Not Spending $20 To Register His Domains, Attorney Sues WordPress, Google and Web.com

May 27th, 2014 Comments off

Jeffrey Wilens D/B/A Lakeshore Law Center filed a federal lawsuit today against Google, the parent company of Word Press Automatic, Inc, and the registrar TLDS L.L.C. which appears to be owned by Web.com for trademark infringement and violation of the ACPA on his common law marks of Jeffrey Wilens and Lakeshore Law Center along with a bunch of registrants referred to as “Does”

The eight page complaint is in my opinion less than impressive.

We will quote from the Complaint below but basically Mr. Wilens who is an attorney and claims he has common law rights in his name since at least 1992 didn’t bother to register his own name, JeffreyWilens.com since 1992.

Actually no one registered the domain name JeffreyWilens.com until December 9th 2013 when it was registered by a “Konstantin Petrov” of Russia.

The domain was registered through TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus which seems to be a owned by Web.com so he sued them

Mr. Wilens sued Word Press because the guy in Russia used Word Press to put the domain name JeffreyWilens.com into a site.

One of the owners of the domain names is using Google’s Blogger.com service and therefore Google was sued

However what is not mentioned anywhere in the lawsuit is why Mr. Wilens didn’t invest $10 to register the .com domain of his own domain for some 25 plus years when it was available to be registered,

I also have no idea of why Mr. Wilens didn’t file a UDRP on the domain(s) which is much cheaper and quicker rather than sue Companies like Google, Web.com and Word Press in federal court none of which registered the domains.

Also I have no idea of why Mr. Wilens doesn’t seem to know that federal law protects registrars from a lawsuit when a third party uses their service to simply register a domain.

I also have a problem with the statement in the Complaint that the domain holders name “is obviously a fake name and address and in no way related to Plaintiff”

Well I have no doubt that Mr. Petrov is not related to Mr. Wilens but have no idea of how he can say its obviously a fake name.

Finally not sure why Mr. Wiliens is not as upset with the registration of LakeShoreLawCenter.com which was just registered in January under privacy at Reg.com which is the Russian registrar Reg.Ru.

That company was not named in the lawsuit.

Mr. Wilens does own some domains, therefore he knows something about domains and how to register them.

Blame for failing to register you’re own domain name, especially if your a professional like an attorney who uses that name in business and to then fails to register the name of you’re own law firm for more than two decades seems to fall squarely on the attorney, not Word Press or the Registrar or Google.

That’s my two cents here are the highlights of the Complaint:

“”Plaintiff is an attorney licensed in the State of California

Plaintiff holds trademarks or service marks on “Jeffrey Wilens” and “Lakeshore Law Center.”

He has had these since at least 1992.

These common law trademarks are pending registration under serial numbers 86193592 and 86193589 respectively.

Plaintiff operates a national law office under these trademarks and maintains websites at lakeshorelaw.org and creditrepairdebt.org as well as at other Internet locations.

There is only one attorney named Jeffrey Wilens in the USA and only one law firm named Lakeshore Law Center in the USA.

Plaintiff is known for a specialized practice in consumer and employment law and it is not unusual for him to receive inquiries from potential clients throughout the United States.

Over the past 20 years, Plaintiff has spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising and promoting his personal and business name.

Defendant TLDS L.L.C. DBA SRSPLUS is the domain name registrar for jeffreywilens.com.

The registrant for that domain name is listed as “Konstantin Petrov, Montazhnikov 24, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia,” which is obviously a fake name and address and in no way related to Plaintiff.

The registrant also lists a phone number of 812-000-0000, which is a fake number.

Doe Defendant No. 1 is a currently unidentified person who has created a number of websites for the purposes of diverting search engine traffic by clients and potential clients of Plaintiff from Plaintiff’s websites to the websites controlled by Doe No. 1. He did this for purposes of commercial gain and with intent to tarnish or disparage Plaintiff’s marks by creating likelihood of confusion.

To that end, Doe No. 1 created an account with AUTOMATTIC, INC. so that he could create WordPress-hosted websites.

Doe No. 1 was allowed by this defendant to use the trademarked names in prominent fashion. Specifically, Doe No. 1 was allowed by AUTOMATTIC, INC. to create websites using the names: lakeshorelawcenter.wordpress.com; attorneyjeffreywilens.wordpress.com; jeffreywilenslawyer.wordpress.com; unitedvictimsofjeffreywilens.wordpress.com; and jeffreywilenslakeshorelaw.wordpress.com.

Similarly, Doe No. 1 created an account with GOOGLE INC. which allowed him to created a Blogger hosted website using the name jeffreywilens.blogspot.com.

Similarly, Doe No. 1 hired SRSPLUS to register the name “jeffreywilens.com” for a website owned by Doe No. 1. SRSPLUS was immediately aware of the fake registrant information provided by Doe No. 1.

Each of the Defendants knew or should have known Doe No. 1 was not Plaintiff and had no legitimate purpose for using Plaintiff’s personal or business name in the domain name of the websites.

Each of the Defendants is aware their actions were and are contributing to the trademark infringements in that Plaintiff provided written notice on or about March 3, 2014 to each of the Defendants and provided specific information describing the trademark infringements and each particular defendant’s role in perpetuating them. Each of the Defendants responded in writing and stated they would not take any actions to stop the trademark infringements which they were assisting absent an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125, subdivision (a) (1) by using in commerce the terms or names “Jeffrey Wilens” and/or “Lakeshore Law Center” in a manner that is likely to cause confusion or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of the ownership of the aforementioned websites.

As a result of these trademark infringements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in that potential and actual clients have been misdirected to the offending websites by virtue of the fact they appear prominently in the list of websites generated by “Googling” Jeffrey Wilens or Lakeshore Law Center. If Doe No. 1 had not been allowed to use the names “Jeffrey Wilens” or “Lakeshore Law Center” as the domain names, the search engines COMPLAINT would not have ranked these offending websites so highly.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recover equitable relief in the form of an injunction and cancellation of the improper domain names, and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI– CYBERSQUATTING PROTECTION ACT (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)

Plaintiff has trademark rights to the domain names;

The domain names consist of the legal name of Plaintiff and of his business;

There is no history of prior use of these domain names by Defendants before October 2013;

Defendants intended to divert consumers from Plaintiff’s legitimate websites to sites controlled by Defendants which were set up to harm the goodwill represented by the marks and to disparage the marks and create confusion;

Doe No. 1 provided false contact information when applying to register the domain names and Defendants knowingly published that false information; Doe No. 1 registered or set up multiple websites with domain names Defendants knew were identical or confusingly similar to the marks of Plaintiff and Defendants permitted him to do this.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d) (1) (C), Plaintiff is entitled to recover equitable relief in the form of an injunction, forfeiture or cancellation of the domain names being used by Doe No. 1 and transfer of same to Plaintiff, and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

31. In the alternative to actual damages, Plaintiff may elect to receive statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name from Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment on all causes of action against Defendants as follows:

1. For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from misusing Plaintiff’s trademarks or service marks and cancellation of domain names and/or transfer of them to Plaintiff;

2. For actual damages on the first and second causes of action in an amount according to
proof;

3. For statutory damages of $100,000 for each domain name that was misused as alleged
above on the second cause of action;

4. For interest on the sum of money awarded as damages”””

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Categories: External Articles, Legal Tags: