3 ms·

Grubhub's official statement appears to not understand what cybersquatting actually means, and "created the websites for them" with the ordering process still o

Grubhub's official statement appears to not understand what cybersquatting actually means, and "created the websites for them" with the ordering process still occurring through Grubhub's platform oftentimes by simply changing the TLD of a company's existing website. Since these orders would directly feed into Grubhub's service, the business could be on the hook for a percentage fee that can be as high as 35% of the order's cost. This definitely seems to fall under extortion and cybersquatting to me.

jacurtis 7y ago
Its a legal response. The response even reads the definition of cybersquatting according to them which is that the domain was purchased as "generally bad faith registration of another person's trademark". So GrubHub is claiming that it wasn't purchased in "bad faith" because they are helping the business get more orders. Therefore it isn't cybersquatting. I am not saying I agree (I think all these delivery services are predatory in more ways than one), but there statement is saying that according to ICAAN's definition they are not cybersquatting. Of course this is semantics because the local business would claim that it was bought without permission and was bad faith. And that is what GrubHub's legal team wants. A discussion about the exact definition of cybersquatting that goes on for months and/or years until the small company realizes it isn't worth their time. This is the value of class action lawsuits. While class actions are often scams in their own right, this would be a legitimate example of a class action serving its purpose. All the thousands of restaurants affected by this would get together to fight against the company. That would be enough to scare GrubHub (and others).
chrshawkes 7y ago
I love how the CEO was on his high horse just a few years ago talking about the importance of ethics. If I recall correctly, he threatened to fire anybody who voted Republican? This guy clearly shouldn't be leading any company or group of people. Is anyone surprised by this?

jacurtis 7y ago

Its a legal response. The response even reads the definition of cybersquatting according to them which is that the domain was purchased as "generally bad faith registration of another person's trademark". So GrubHub is claiming that it wasn't purchased in "bad faith" because they are helping the business get more orders. Therefore it isn't cybersquatting. I am not saying I agree (I think all these delivery services are predatory in more ways than one), but there statement is saying that according to ICAAN's definition they are not cybersquatting. Of course this is semantics because the local business would claim that it was bought without permission and was bad faith. And that is what GrubHub's legal team wants. A discussion about the exact definition of cybersquatting that goes on for months and/or years until the small company realizes it isn't worth their time. This is the value of class action lawsuits. While class actions are often scams in their own right, this would be a legitimate example of a class action serving its purpose. All the thousands of restaurants affected by this would get together to fight against the company. That would be enough to scare GrubHub (and others).

chrshawkes 7y ago

I love how the CEO was on his high horse just a few years ago talking about the importance of ethics. If I recall correctly, he threatened to fire anybody who voted Republican? This guy clearly shouldn't be leading any company or group of people. Is anyone surprised by this?