The Empower.com lawsuit is important for reasons that go beyond a single domain name. In this litigation, you have a company that used Empower in its branding long before the Plaintiff’s Empower brand existed. Despite the history of the Empower.com domain name, the Plaintiff filed a cybersquatting lawsuit to wrest control of the valuable one word .com domain name from the longtime registrant, Empower Geographics.

I believe a victory by the Plaintiff in this litigation could pose significant harm to the domain name aftermarket. In my opinion, it would become more risky to own valuable one word or short acronym domain names if a company would be able to use the legal system to get control of a domain name that has been rightfully owned by another entity for years before that brand was even created.

In a blog post published yesterday afternoon, Coinbase announced that it would soon launch Coinbase NFT. According to the article Coinbase NFT will become “a peer-to-peer marketplace that will make minting, purchasing, showcasing, and discovering NFTs easier than ever.”

My guess is that Coinbase NFT will be found within the original Coinbase.com website, but the company also owns CoinbaseNFT.com. Whois records at DomainTools show that CoinbaseNFT.com is registered at MarkMonitor, and the domain name was created in March of this year.

GIVN.com was the subject a UDRP filing at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The decision was published today, and the panelist, Robert A. Badgley, ruled in favor of the domain registrant. The complaint was filed by a company called GIVN Goods, Inc., which operates on GivnWater.com. The domain registrant was represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

According to the decision, the domain registrant purchased the domain name at auction. NameBio shows that GIVN.com was acquired via NameJet in May of this year for $6,400.

One of the things I have learned over the years is that no matter how descriptive a domain name is, there is always the risk that a company will believe it has more rights to the domain name than an investor has. Sometimes, a company will start off by sending a Cease & Desist letter (C&D) to the registrant in an effort to scare the registrant into giving up the domain name for nothing or a pittance. This can be the first salvo in a long legal battle or it can be the last communication.

Responding (or not responding) to a C&D letter may depend on the situation. While it might be tempting to respond on your own, particularly in the case of a serious overreach, I think it is best to hire a good IP attorney with domain name expertise to evaluate the situation and come up with a best response (or non-response). An attorney might suggest how to reply or might be able to write a strong response if necessary, depending on the exact situation.

Logan Flatt shared a brief snippet about a recent situation he was in and gave thanks to attorney Jason Schaeffer for his assistance:

A Turkish company officially known as Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi filed a UDRP against the 4 letter TOGG.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The panelist, Matthew Kennedy, ruled in favor of the domain registrant and found that the complaint was brought in bad faith (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – RDNH). The domain registrant was represented by attorney John Berryhill.

According to the decision (published today), the complainant tried to withdraw the UDRP in order to reach a settlement with the domain registrant. The domain registrant was willing to allow the withdrawal if the complainant agreed to not re-file a UDRP or other legal dispute elsewhere. By not agreeing to this stipulation, the WIPO UDRP proceeding continued.

It looks like this was a fairly straightforward case for the domain registrant and its counsel to defend. The domain name was acquired well before the complainant existed, and without having knowledge about the complainant in advance, it would be impossible to prove the domain name was registered in bad faith. Here’s an excerpt from the decision covering that aspect: