A Federal District Court has awarded NameCheap.com $1.3 Million Dollars in a cybersquatting suit.
The judgement (Judgment) was entered back in January 2013 but it does not appear to have been reported on before.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California awarded NameCheap.com $50,000 for each of the 26 infringing domains for a total of $1.3 Million.
The Court also awarded NameCheap.com the domain names which appear below.
Earlier we reported on a National Arbitration Forum decision (1505106) which shows NameCheap’s claim being denied on 7 of these domains which are part of this judgement.
Until that NAF ruling is published in light of this Judgement we took down the earlier post and will report on it when it is published.
Here are the domain names subject to the federal lawsuit and judgement:
AMECHEAP .COM
NAMECHEEP .COM
ANMECHEAP .COM
NAMEXHEAP .COM
NAMECHESP .COM
NAMECHEAPL.COM
NAME-CHEAP .COM
NAMEDCHEAP .COM
NNAMECHEAP .COM
NAMCHEAP.NET
NAME4CHEAP .COM
NAMECHAEP .COM
NAMECHAP .COM
NAMECHEP .COM
NAMESCHEAP .INFO
NAMMECHEAP .COM
NAMEECHEAP .COM
NAAMECHEAP .COM
NAMECHEEAP .COM
NAMECHEAPP .COM
NMAECHEAP .COM
NAMECHEAAP .COM
NAMWCHEAP .COM
NAMECHEAPS.INFO
NAMCHEAP .COM
NAMECHEA.COM
NAMECHEA.COM
NAECHEAP .COM
NAMESCHEAP.US
NAMECHEAP .BIZ
NAMESCHEAP.BIZ
NAMECNEAP .COM
NAMEHCEAP .COM
NAMECEAP .COM
NMECHAP .COM
MAMECHEAP .COM
NAMECEHAP .COM
They belonged to some dude in China, good luck collecting that judgement.
what parking company is serving this page?
http://web.archive.org/web/20110211013214/http://namechap.com/
off hand looks like domainsponsor.com
Is it possible NAF denied the complaint because there was pending court action? If not then I really want to see on what grounds the UDRP complaint was denied.
The UDRP decisions have been pretty absurd recently. From generics like Vanity.com, NiceCar.com, MedicalPark.com and others being awarded via UDRP to obvious TM infringing domains being denied, none of this makes any sense.
ICANN unleashed this BS process and is doing nothing to control it. Now ICANN expects to be trusted with a new process (URS). UDRP providers needs to have a standard and enforceable contractual agreement with ICANN.
There is no appeals process, there is no penalty for reverse domain hijacking, there is no respected precedent. It is a kangaroo court. The current process is not fair to anyone if domain registrants are at risk to lose generic terms, and valid complaints for TM terms are being denied.
Brad
NameCheap will NOT get a penny from the judgement…good luck collecting.
Has any domain owner actually collected from these $50k per domain bullshit judgement cases???
Thanks Mike,
are the Parking companies’ disclaimers ‘bullet proof’?
How can they totally disassociate/distance so easily from the cibersquat profiting/liabilities/racket?
Is it worth it?
Domo
I believe some parking have been sued with domain owners Verizon case comes to mind
I am just surprised it doesn’t happen more often, who are the ‘deep pocketed’ ones? and are just as guilty and part of the problem?
but do I know?
SEDO didn’t fare well in France on a similar case…
*claimer/disclaimer: I have/had my own indiscretions…
Actually, the NAF Decision was a TDRP Decision. The TDRP is a dispute resolution policy between registrars for when a transfer runs amok. The decisions are not public. –Kristine, Legal Counsel with NAF
Kristine
So the parties get a copy of the decision but the decision is not published just the results
Correct?
Correct.