Legal News

No Joke: Harvard Lampoon Files UDRP for Lampoon.com

Here’s a recently filed UDRP that is a bit frustrating to see as a professional domain investor.

Harvard Lampoon, a “humor publication” produced by college students at the esteemed Harvard University, has filed a UDRP for the seemingly descriptive domain name, Lampoon.com. The domain name is owned by Reflex Publishing, a company that holds one of the finest portfolios of descriptive/generic domain names.

Lampoon.com currently resolves to a standard Reflex Publishing PPC page with a wide variety of links. From what I can tell, it does not appear that Reflex is targeting or tailoring the links to capitalize on traffic from people looking for the Harvard Lampoon. Additionally, with the “CyberFinder.com” title (found on most Reflex Publishing landing pages), I can’t believe anyone with a brain would confuse this with the Harvard Lampoon website.

Aside from the term “lampoon” being a descriptive word, and in addition to the Harvard Lampoon publication, there’s also the National Lampoon, Chicago Lampoon, and of course the beloved National Lampoon’s Vacation, a great movie starring Chevy Chase. I don’t see how anyone would think they have rights to this domain name. It would almost be like Bank of America asserting it has rights to Bank.com (although Harvard does have a mark for the term Lampoon – see below).

Reflex Publishing appears to have owned Lampoon.com since at the very least 2005 and likely 1998 (records only go through 2005 for this one). Since the Harvard Lampoon has been around since the 1800s, what the heck has the organization been doing for the last several years if it thinks it has more rights to this domain name than Reflex? Why did they wait at least 6 years and maybe as long as 13 years to take action?

Yes, Harvard Lampoon has at least 2 live marks for Lampoon according to the USPTO, but I don’t see what took it so long to try and exercise its rights via UDRP. I wonder if the doctrine of laches would be applicable in this situation.

Report: Kate Middleton .com Domain Name Bought for Under $2,500

I read a report on TheProvince.com (a Canada-based website), this afternoon that said KateMiddleton.com was acquired by a Canadian couple for just $2,350. The domain name was originally registered in 2003, and the new owners have already launched a website on the site.

This has to be one of the better deals I’ve seen in a while, although generating revenue from it may prove to be difficult from a legal standpoint. Based on the content on the website, it seems that the couple is obviously targeting Kate Middleton, who is marrying Prince William in the “Royal Wedding” this Friday. Some day, it’s very likely that Kate Middleton will be Queen of England. There is no doubt that she is a famous person.

While many people have successfully defended owning domain names of famous people, there have been many that have lost. Generating revenue seems to be one of the ways a domain owner can risk losing a domain name via UDRP since it’s making money off of another person’s famous name. IP attorney Enrico Schaefer discussed this issue on his website a while back.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal expertise, but it would seem to me that it’s a risky proposition to have Google Adsense or other revenue generating links on this website (which it currently has). I know that making money is tempting, but to me, it doesn’t seem to be worth the risk, should the British government (or Kate Middleton) lay claim to this domain name. Not only is it a UDRP risk, but it may also be a financial risk as well.

Kate Middleton has been in the news for the last several months, and her name will continue to make news as she becomes a Princess. I think KateMiddleton.com is a great domain name, but monetizing it is a pretty big risk in my opinion.

Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. Files UDRP for PPD.com

10

I really hate seeing UDRP filings for three letter .com domain names. In my opinion, three letter acronyms usually have many different meanings, and it’s generally tough to say who would have a right to own the name.

I was checking the World Intellectual Property Organization’s website to see what UDRP filings have been recently made, and I saw one for the seemingly descriptive PPD.com. According to the filing report, Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. and  Pharmaco Investments, Inc. filed a UDRP for PPD.com in mid-April.

In looking at a historical thumbnail of PPD.com, I don’t see how the domain name is infringing upon this company’s brand. In fact, there seems there was even a vulgar message splashed across the front (see historical thumbnail from May 2008).  At the present time, PPD.com looks to be a standard parking page without much of a focus on a particular industry, so it doesn’t jump out at me as to why the company thinks they deserve the domain name.

Some PPD uses/meanings/acronyms:

  • Postponed
  • Stock ticker for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
  • PPD Worldwide
  • PPD, Inc.
  • Points Per Day
  • Philadelphia Police Department
  • Post Partum Depression

AcronymFinder.com found a total of 71 meanings for PPD, including some of those mentioned above, and also including the name of the company that filed the UDRP.

This will be an interesting case to follow since I don’t believe the domain name is being used in bad faith (at least in my opinion). I’ve never heard of the company that filed the complaint, and it might be tough to prove a bad faith registration.

PokerStars.com and FullTiltPoker.com Domain Names To Be Restored to Facilitate Return of U.S. Player Funds

3

The US government shut down several of the largest poker websites last week and seized five associated domain names, which caused considerable outrage and tumult in the US and around the world. The website operators and facilitators were indicted by Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and they face a variety of charges.

The US Attorney’s office issued another press release this morning  (see pdf on US Attorney’s website), announcing that a deal has been struck between Bharara’s office and Poker Stars and Full Tilt  Poker to restore the PokerStars.com and FullTiltPoker.com domain names, allowing  US players to withdraw funds being held by the two companies.

According to today’s press release:

“Under the terms of the agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, the companies agreed that they would not allow for, facilitate, or provide the ability for players located in the United States to engage in playing online poker for “real money” or any other thing of value. The agreements allow for PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker to use the pokerstars.com and fulltiltpoker.com domain names to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. players’ funds held in account with the companies. The deposit of funds by U.S. players is expressly prohibited.”

This appears to be good news for US-based poker players who were concerned about the status of their deposits. Poker players who used other websites are not yet in the clear to receive their funds, but the press release mentioned that “the  Government stands to enter the same agreement with Absolute Poker if it so chooses.

Neither website appears to be operational yet, as both still have the seizure notice on them. It may take some time for the websites’ DNS to  propagate, just as it took up to 2 days for the sites to show the seizure notice for some people.

Thanks to Alexander Ripps at  GamblingCompliance.com for the tip.

US Government Seizes Major Poker Company Domain Names Including UB.com

The US Attorney’s Office in New York City issued a press release this afternoon announcing charges for the founders of three major online poker companies: PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker. There are some serious charges in the indictment, and this could be a game changing moment for companies in the online poker business.

According to the press release, the government seized five domain names, although it did not mention the domain names that were seized. Generally, there is a clear message posted on the website indicating the seizure, which you can see in the graphic above.

Based on the message that currently appears on UltimateBet.com and also on UB.com, it appears that these domain name were two of the names seized, although the Whois information does not reflect that yet. According to a page on Wikipedia, Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are owned by the same company, Cereus Poker Network.

It appears that the websites for Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker, and PokerStars are still operational right now, although I don’t have a list of domain names that these companies use for their businesses.

This could be a game changer, since these are all major websites, and I don’t recall seizures of domain names for major poker companies like this. One of the most interesting things to follow will be learning how company clients will get their millions of dollars in deposits refunded.

Thanks to Alexander Ripps at GamblingCompliance.com for the tip.

Tucows Wins Lorenzo.com UDRP

2

Tucows LogoIn January, I reported that a company called Lorenzo International had filed a UDRP for the domain name, Lorenzo.com. This domain name is owned by Tucows and is a part of the company’s  NetIdentity suite of first and last name domain names, some of which have been the subject of successfully defended UDRP filings in the past.

According to the discussion in the UDRP decision (not yet available online), the company’s usage of Lorenzo.com is legitimate, and the complaint was denied. From the UDRP decision:

“there is no evidence that the Respondent’s continuing use of the domain name in the same way in connection with its Personal Names Service is not bona fide. The Respondent states that it was not aware of the Complainant or of its claim to trademark rights until it received the Complaint. The Complainant has therefore demonstrated that prior to any notice to it of the dispute it used the disputed domain name in the bona fide offering of its services.”

Based on prior results of similar cases, it’s not really surprising to me that Tucows prevailed in this UDRP. As a domain owner, it’s frustrating to see another UDRP case filed where one company thinks it has more rights to a descriptive domain name than the registrant.

A three person panel with Desmond J. Ryan AM, Dan Hunter, and David E. Sorkin ruled on this UDRP decision. Tucows was represented by AlvaradoSmith.

Recent Posts

Squadhelp Adds Escrow.com as a Payment Option

1
Squadhelp has added Escrow.com as a payment option for buyers. The addition of the Escrow.com option was shared by ARIYAS on X this morning: 👍...

Some Thoughts on .AI Domain Names

15
There is no question that .AI domain names have become a hot topic of late. With considerable amounts of venture funding flowing into AI...

Handoff to Dan on Imported Leads Can be Confusing

0
I've been using the lead import option at Dan.com more regularly. Although the 5% commission is not ideal, transactions tend to move more quickly...

ArtificialIntelligence.com Goes Up for Sale

11
I tried to buy the ArtificialIntelligence.com domain name multiple times over the last 10 years. The emails I sent to the registrant went unanswered,...

EU Gives More IP Protection to Food & Drink Producers

0
Did you know that some well-known food and drink varieties are protected intellectual property regulations? Popular types of drinks and foods that are protected...