The registrant of JustBulbs.com was able to win two (1, and 2) UDRP decisions, 11 years apart. But 3 years later they ended up losing the domain name, $50,000 and attorney’s fees in an ACPA court case.
Gerald Levine wrote about the case here.
What I also found was the lawyer who represented the company bringing legal action vs Greg Ricks, the domain owner, taking great pride in their victory.
In a post titled, “Cybersquatter Gets Swatted Down”
Mark S. Kaufman details how he successfully won the domain name, $50,000 and attorney’s fees.
At the end of the article, Kaufman writes that a domain investor client of his told him this would be quite the feather in his firm’s cap.
This is article is worth reading and won’t take long.
I was talking about this case to a friend who has been in the business for years, he said “If I read this case before I got into domaining, I probably would have never entered domaining.
Would this type of case make you hesitant about becoming a domain investor?
So sorry to hear this to Greg Ricks.
So sorry to hear this to entire domain community.
I can see anyone thinking about domaining right now, thinking twice after this horrible financial loss decision to a very reputable domainer.
How can we stop this from happening?
Reading these decisions, you can see why he lost. The site had light bulb ads. Thx for posting this.
Did not read the linked posts of lawyer commentary or decision. If lightbulb links were on domain landing page, then yes i get it.
Thanks
*Lesson* : Do not use a trademarked domain, unless you own the TM for that class, to forward to PPC links. The respondent claimed to have avoided simple USPTO relevant searches, and that denial; rather true or false, is why he lost his domain name. Berkens wrote an article on this very site, in 2017, warning all speculators to avoid Trademark law 101 at your own peril…
The outcome of this case has no bearing on my interest in domain speculation, because trademark squatting and domain speculation are mutually inclusive…
“respondents would have to show a use “consistent with [a] proper purpose””,
That boils it down on the winning defense to ACPA .
“it is not inconceivable the respondent was unaware of preexisting marks”
Forces UDRP Panels to conclude the Respondent might not be lying
therefore the Complainant’s bad faith claim goes out the window.
Explains why the France.com case never went to ACPA.
(Establishing ownership rights is a step-by-step legal process. Always seek the advice of an attorney, as professionals with no background in this area-of-practice describe the process.)
IMI.com is still with its owner after 1 year of UDRP decision…
this industry has and will always be wild west. take it for what its worth.
I’ve bought 5000 TM names too. who cares
Give it a few more months and hopefully I can report “Arrogant Complainant completely Squashed Flat” . Don’t ask I can say no more, YET. I may lose who knows.