At the end of 2017, I wrote about the IMI.com UDRP decision. Shortly after the decision in favor of the complainant was published, I labeled it “stunning.” It looks like the registrant of the domain name filed a lawsuit shortly after losing the UDRP, and from what I can tell, it looks like he won. The case is still ongoing (more on that below).
The court docket is quite long, and it looks like it made it all the way to a jury trial. The jurors were asked several questions, with the two most important (and non-contingent ones) below:
Has Mr. Black proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Black did not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?
Has Irving Materials Inc. proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Black violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?
As you can see on the jury’s verdict form (pdf), the jury voted “Yes,” that Mr. Black proved he did not violate the ACPA and “No” on the question about whether IMI proved that Mr. Black violated the ACPA.
In reading the court docket, it looks like Mr. Black and Irving Materials are now engaged in Alternative Dispute Resolution, to determine what (if anything) IMI will pay to Mr. Black and probably to stave off an appeal. I believe Mr. Black countersued Irving Materials for reverse domain name hijacking, so he might end up getting some damages as a result. Perhaps the parties will end up working out a deal to sell the domain name, but this might be a surprising development since a settlement had not been agreed to before.
Attorney Mike Rodenbaugh has represented the registrant of IMI.com in this lawsuit.
Thank you to John Berryhill for sharing this court docket with me and for interpreting the status of the case for me.
