Celgene Files Lawsuit After It Lost a UDRP with RDNH

In February of this year, I wrote about Celgene’s UDRP filing against the CellGene.com domain name. The three member WIPO UDRP panel not only ruled against Celgene, but the panel found that the UDRP was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The domain registrant was permitted to keep the domain name.

Following this UDRP loss, Celgene has apparently filed a cybersquatting lawsuit, according to Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. Here’s what the publication wrote about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) lawsuit filed by Celgene:

“In the suit, filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday, May 29, Celgene claimed that cellgene.com was an example of “typosquatting” or “cybersquatting”, a process where a domain name is created with a typographical error to closely imitate a more reputable website.”

I believe the requirements to prove cybersquatting in a ACPA lawsuit are different than the UDRP requirements. I am not sure if the UDRP / RDNH decision will have any sort of impact on this federal lawsuit.

One thing I still find interesting is that the domain registrant had allegedly been willing to sell this domain name for $7,500 (according to the UDRP decision) and Celgene had been willing to buy it for $2,000. With this lawsuit, both parties are going to have substantial legal fees, and I suspect the cost will be much, much higher than $7,500.

I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine the domain registrant will file counterclaims against Celgene in the lawsuit, citing the RDNH finding from the UDRP decision.

Thanks to Josh Bourne for sharing this news via LinkedIn.

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest. Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

5 COMMENTS

  1. It will be interesting to see the end result.
    Domain owner is still lucky since he is hong kong firm, so not much damage except loosing name, same thing doesn’t know he get any money out of it if he win.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

Poll: Are You Going to ICANN 79?

2
The ICANN 79 Community Forum Meeting is coming up in a couple of weeks. The meeting will be held in Puerto Rico from March...

Domain Broker’s Ad Campaign Highlighted by X Business with a Repost from Elon Musk

0
When looking at domain investor Twitter, I've noticed a few promoted/advertising tweets mentioning Rob Schutz and/or Snagged.com. I recently wrote about Rob and his...

NameJet Announces Platform Enhancements

3
Last Summer, NameJet made some "big changes" to its platform. In essence, NameJet appears to have become a clone of Snapnames, its sister auction...

Rationale Behind CoFounders.com Acquisition

1
It's not often that we hear from the founders of a company to discuss why they spent what they did to acquire a specific...

.Bet Domain Name Acquired for 5 Figures, Reportedly Resold for $600k

9
According to a tweet from Identity Digital (formerly Donuts), the Bet.bet domain name reportedly sold for $600,000. I have not verified or researched the...