Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed Over Domain Name Registered 16 Years Before Plaintiff's Use
HughPickens.com writes: Cybersquatting is registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit to those businesses. Now Andrew Allmann writes at Domain Name Wire that New York company Office Space Solutions, Inc. has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against Jason Kneen over the domain name WorkBetter.com that Kneen registered in 1999 although Office Space Solutions didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. "Workbetter.com is virtually identical to, and/or confusingly similar to the WORK BETTER Service Mark, which was distinctive at the time that the Defendant renewed and/or updated the registration of workbetter.com," says the lawsuit. But according to an Office Space Solutions' filing with the USPTO, it didn't use the term "Work Better" in commerce until 2015. Office Space Solutions is making the argument that the domain name was renewed in bad faith. According to Kneen, Office Space previously tried to purchase the domain name from him and after it failed to acquire the domain name, is now trying to take it via a lawsuit.
1. You don't need to make commercial use to have the right of a domain
2. Use of the domain is anything that links to the domain (even if not in "public" use)
Frivoulus case by the look of it. Service Mark owners should have the case dismissed with prejudice.
Since the lawyers get paid regardless, I would hardly call them stupid. The plaintiff, now HE'S stupid, and he's taking bad advice from greedy lawyers.
You can't lose a case there if you tried. And it is not reviewable or appealable to any court in the USA including the Supreme Court.
You think it is a parody from The Onion? It is what TPP does. Only foreign investors can sue the federal government seeking compensation for any change in the law or its implementation by any body (federal, state or local). They can demand compensation for not just actual losses, but for loss of hypothetical future profits their business plan assumed.
Instead these dim wits are appealing to US patent and trade mark office as a domestic investor. Such pointy haired bosses bring shame to all MBAs.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Tossing it will indeed prohibit them from trying again if the case is dismissed with prejudice. They could try the same stunt with a different service mark and a different defendant, but at that point any defense attorney worth his or her retainer is going to bring up the previously-dismissed suit as proof of acting in bad faith.
Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.
Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:
1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.
2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)
Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.
This happened to a man in the 1990s, Mr. Nissan.
http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/...
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That's a myth spread by litigious idiots whop prefer not to be seen as the scum that they are.
A simple legal agreement taking up less than one page where the domain name holder agrees not to use that domain name for the same line of business would do just fine if their intentions were at all honorable.
Suing someone who isn't infringing your trademark is not defending your trademark. It is harassing an innocent person.