COURTS CAN STEAL ALL YOUR DOMAINS AND CREATE CYBERSQUATTERS
October 15th, 2009 Posted in Business Sector, DomainNameNews.com, General Domain NewsWhoa.
Did I just read this article correctly? Can a court award a complainant 800 domains defining names and terms outside the complainant’s original filing? If I’m wrong, I just read this NY Times article where Toronto Raptors’ Chris Bosh was awarded his name as a domain name, PLUS 800 (eight hundred!) more domains that the respondent/defendant owned that have nothing to do with Bosh’s name.
What happened here, people? The plaintiff, Chris Bosh, files a lawsuit regarding a domain name they want: “Chrisbosh.com”. After the case is heard, the judge awards Bosh not only his name domain, but 800 more domains that the defendant, Luis Zavalda, owns representing other people’s names. I don’t get it.
What’s the difference if the Defendant owns 800 domains of other people in the news, etc, or if Chris Bosh now owns them? How can a court, without due cause, pull 800 domains from someone’s account, that have nothing to do with the Plaintiff’s name, and give these supposedly “cybersquatted” domains to the plaintiff? Wouldn’t this now make the Plaintiff the so-called “cybersquatter”?
If someone sues you for a domain name they think is a TMer, (let’s not even go into reverse hijacking), and if the person succeeds in winning the domain from you, is it right that the court awards you ALL other domains they think could be cybersquatted? (Please don’t make me write the incredibly stupid and wrong-headed descriptions of what many people think “cybersquatting” is.)
I’d like some feedback on this case, because I think it is the most important case against domainers ever held, besides the Kentucky ruling last year. Even the Wall Street Journal got in their digs, using the headline “SCORE: Raptor 1, Cybersquatter 0″. They should have had the headline read “SCORE: Raptor 800, Domainers 0″.
Domainers should be aware that three things are working against their domain investment:
1) Ignorance by the layman of what domain investing is, and their hatred of the fact you own a generic domain they wish they bought first.
2) The power of position, business strength, and recognition in swaying a court decision against you, even if your domain is purely generic.
3) The ability for those with deep legal funds to sue for domains owned by people who can’t afford to fight them
My position on my domains is strongly safeguarded by my legal team, but what about those domain investors who can’t defend themselves because they don’t have the funds? It’s the same old “American Justice” story — if you have money to sue, you win, if you don’t have money to defend yourself, you lose. So for court decisions in many cases: “The Rich Win, The Poor Wish They Were Rich and Lick Their Wounds”
The justice system in our country seems like it is fair when you say the Pledge of Allegiance, but when you enter court, better have the cash to pay your attorney, who WILL make money one way or another.
I would like to find out more information on how the courts made Luis Zavalda a “cybersquatter” by owning domain names of famous people and their kids, but wrongfully giving 800 “name domains” to the Plaintiff. They’ve just made Chris Bosh a “cybersquatter” if they use their own logic in their ruling. I’ve seen some bad rulings before, but this one is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe I have it wrong. Anyone have more info on this case?
4 Responses to “COURTS CAN STEAL ALL YOUR DOMAINS AND CREATE CYBERSQUATTERS”
By Michael Berkens on Oct 15, 2009
Stephen
Here is my understanding.
First of all the guy holding the domains never showed up in court to defend himself.
The judge award Bosh $120k in damages as well as his domain.
Since the guy never showed up in court the judge determined that the damages were going to be uncollectable and awarded all the domains to Bosh as compensation in lieu of the damages.
Now If the domain holder paid Bosh the $120K in damages I guess he could get the domains back.
I also saw a statement that Bosh has no intention of using the names, his attorney said, and those whose names are on the list can contact Bosh’s attorneys at Winston & Strawn to get their name back for free.
Bottom line if you get sued you have to defend yourself. Not just in the domain world but for anything. If you don’t show up to court the plaintiff is going to get anything they want.
By Ken on Oct 15, 2009
“The justice system in our country seems like it is fair … but when you enter court, better have the cash to pay your attorney, who WILL make money one way or another.”
We’ve been there. It takes a toll emotionally and financially. No one outside of “you” will care until it happens to them. Justice? You must pay to play and if you can’t you had better get out of this game.
Real development and actually trademarking those efforts is the only protection a domain owner has. Otherwise you will be labeled.
By jp on Oct 15, 2009
You’re right, I had the same reaction. It is overreaching and ridiculous. I’m sure that the respondent would lose all those domains individually in individual cases, but this judgement was unconstitutional.
By JZ on Oct 20, 2009
I agree with you 100%, don’t understand why other experts in the domaining business don’t care about some of the ridiculous decisions handed down by WIPO and NAF, of course this one came from a judge. But the more I look at this decision, I believe the judge has set a prescedent that may help domainers. Since the judge gave Bosh all those domains in lieu of the $120,000 judment the respondent could not pay, it’s like Bosh paid $120,000 for all those domains, since the decision came from a judge,(although he has indicated he will transfer the names to Carmelo Anthony and the others)What happens if he changes his mind and keeps them? can these guys sue Bosh and win? This judge, by his decision has said that a personal name can be owned by someone else. It should not matter if you paid $120,000 or $10 to register it.