Lorenzo International Limited Takes Aim at Tucows’ Lorenzo.com

According to the  World Intellectual Property Organization’s website, it appears that Lorenzo International Limited has filed a UDRP for the generic, first-name domain name, Lorenzo.com, which is owned and operated by Tucows.

From the outset and without any specific information related to this case, I believee Lorenzo International Limited will have a difficult time proving it’s case.  At the present time, Lorenzo.com is being used by Tucows as a vanity email service, and the domain name appears to be a part of the company’s  NetIdentity suite of first and last name domain names. In fact, it wasregistered to NetIdentity prior to Tucows’ acquisition.

Tucows has already successfully defended a number of similar cases, including UDRP filings for:

Tucows has lost a few similar UDRP filings, perhaps giving hope to Lorenzo International Limited. In the  Aubert.com filing, there was a dissenting opinion. The  Ricard.com UDRP and the  Weidner.com UDRP were lost as well. The  Dunlap.com UDRP was terminated due to a lawsuit filed in Ontario.

In the Walls.com UDRP linked above, the company successfully defending its ownership while citing its use of the domain name in question, which to me, also seems to be applicable for Lorenzo.com:

“Since 1996, NetIdentity had been providing personalized e-mail blogging and web-hosting services through a collection of personal surname addresses.    NetIdentity had acquired thousands of surname domain names such as <smith.net> and including the disputed domain name <walls.com>.  Customers with hosted websites with NetIdentity are given third level domain names corresponding to their own first name and surname, e.g. <bill.smith.net>.    Netidentity had this secured over 70% of US surnames as domain names.”

Considering the similar circumstances between the Lorenzo.com domain name and the Walls.com domain name, I don’t see why the company shouldn’t retain the rights to Lorenzo.com.

In my opinion, it’s upsetting that a company can so easily try and claim rights to a generic domain name that is being used by another company for its business operations. Of course Tucows can easily afford the legal fees in such an instance, but it’s upsetting to me that Tucows needs to defend this domain name.

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


  1. I read the actual case determination for similar RICARD case and the facts that led up to the case. There is a key issue there concerning Tucows use of the domain name as a landing page for certain types of ads that could be construed as trademark infringement.

    The case was very complicated and highlights the fragility of the current system and the many nuances associated with potential online trademark infringement. This however, is not simply a domain name issue, since similar issues have always existed in the brick-and-mortar world.

  2. @Andrew: Since the UDRP has been filed Tucows will have to file as response if they don’t want to lose the domain. As far as I know suing is an option should they lose the UDRP.

  3. With no reverse highjacking penalties these frivolous domain attacks with only continue and increase. The udrp system is a joke with everyone making money except the rightful generic domain owners. They just get the cost of defending this nonsense.
    Just because tucows can “afford” the cost doesn’t make it right. If for some reason they had a ppc feed listing questionable links remove the links. One strike, stop doing it, two strikes then maybe a case may be claimed. Otherwise the claimant should go suck dirt.

  4. some additional facts. each of aubert, ricard and weidner were also the subject of lawsuits in ontario. each case was settled.

    in each case the settlement acknowledges that each party has their respective rights and that we did not act in bad faith in the operation of our vanity email business.

    this is just a cost of doing business for us and the fact that there are no penalties is indeed a problem.

    also note “lorenzo” is a surname as well as a first name.

  5. Two scenarios: they called their corporate lawyer they were probably clueless on how UDRP and domains worked so they filed.

    Or it could be a ploy to ‘force’ a sale, knowing that a lawsuit will proceed if they win a UDRP, assuming they looked at the Tucows history

  6. I can pretty much assure you it is the first. read the filing :-).

    our price does not change on the basis of litigation. in rare circumstances we do sell surnames and the price is very high. if someone is willing to pay that price they can do so without litigation.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

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

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...

Finalize a Deal by Connecting on LinkedIn

When I agree to a negotiated deal on a platform like Dan or Sedo, I have always held the expectation that the payment will...

Google Ads Selects Squadhelp for Case Study

If you have visited a Squadhelp landing page, chances are good that you have seen their advertising when you visit other websites that have...

Reliance is “More than Metal” Following Upgrade

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. has existed as a business for more than 80 years and is publicly traded under the RS ticker symbol...

What to do with an Unused Domain Name

A person who has long owned a 3 letter .com domain name reached out to me to try and sell it. It's a nice...