6 ms·

I wonder to what extent companies consider the reputational damage these kinds of enforcement actions cause. I recently came across this when googling for infor

by new299 2y ago

I wonder to what extent companies consider the reputational damage these kinds of enforcement actions cause. I recently came across this when googling for information on a small Biotech startup: https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=65fab3e46fc02956a01040a9 https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=65fab3e46fc02956a010... Will probably be the first thing I remember when I hear their name.

fxtentacle 2y ago
Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.
- cowsandmilk 2y ago
  > And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name. Actually, the company’s trademarks are from 2017 and he got his name via marriage in 2020. Still a stupid suit
  - freehorse 2y ago
    Yes, but they registered it in 2022, which makes the case even more hopeless.
- bitwize 2y ago
  Prince Rogers Nelson's given name was a registered trademark of Warner Music. It took that whole stunt with him changing his name to Love Symbol #2 to get them to relent.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    wow. i didn't know that prince was the same as prince rogers nelson (only vaguely remembered the name prince as a musician from dances at high school), so googled his name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)
- wlesieutre 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...
  - account42 2y ago
    Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
    - bugmenow 2y ago
      Also in France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods
- runeb 2y ago
  Curiously, Scipio is also arguably one of the most famous family names from Roman Antiquity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus
jojobas 2y ago
Remember how KPMG claimed nobody is allowed to link to their site? I 'member.
richbell 2y ago
When I opened that link, I didn't except to be captivated by what is otherwise a boring procedural document. Shame on SCIPIO.
erredois 2y ago
Remindes me of someone I met a long time ago that had the Zeppelin last name, and could not use on Facebook because and agreement between Facebook and the band Led Zeppelin blocked it.
- djbusby 2y ago
  Yet, someone squatting my trademarked name (profile URL) on FB and I can't get it.
herman_toothrot 2y ago
RIP Uzi Nissan of Nissan Computer Company.
diego_sandoval 2y ago
Mr. Scipio had to provide evidence, lose his privacy and justify his use of the domain name to avoid losing it. That is enough proof to conclude that this UDRP thing is deeply unfair and should not exist. "First come, first served" is much more fair than this "burden of proof falls on the defendant" nonsense. We'll have to replace ICANN with something better at some point.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  He's worried about his privacy? He reveals all on his website https://www.christian-scipio.de/ https://www.christian-scipio.de/
  - diego_sandoval 2y ago
    What matters is the general case. We shouldn't be required to expose our personal lives to be able to retain our domain names.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it. I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well. There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain. I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse.
  - diego_sandoval 2y ago
    What would have happened if Scipio refused to provide his marriage papers? Would he have lost the domain? How could he know beforehand? If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain". > 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country. I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration. * And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.
madaxe_again 2y ago
In my experience, businesses which are the most vigorous about pursuing frivolous IP claims and lawsuits are usually dishonest entities which themselves trample and steal the IP of others. I have twice found myself defending my IP rights when a business in one case, a government ministry in another, attempted to dispute my right to use the work that they had themselves stolen, wholesale.
jrs235 2y ago
It brings more eyeballs and attention to them when they do this and makes uninformed or unopinionated people view them negatively. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Terr_ 2y ago
Kinda wish the company got more than a slap on the wrist for such nonsense. > While the Complainant may have 'sailed very close to the wind' in this case [...] the Complainant's conduct in this case does not appear to fall squarely into the realm of any of the above mentioned [Reverse Domain Name Highjacking] circumstances. Therefore, the Panel has decided not to make a finding of RDNH on this occasion. The Panel however cautions the Complainant to only invoke the [Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy] Policy in the future in circumstances under which the Complainant is able to identify the bases and adduce evidence in respect of all three UDRP Policy grounds. So yeah, name-n-shame on their leadership such as *checks* CEO Pierre Chaumat and friends. [0] [0] https://scipio.bio/news/scipio-bioscience-appoints-new-ceo-to-usher-the-next-development-phases https://scipio.bio/news/scipio-bioscience-appoints-new-ceo-t...
gonzo41 2y ago
Well it worked out for Beyonce and when she trademarked her kids name https://www.bet.com/article/86lls7/beyonce-wins-blue-ivy-trademark-dispute https://www.bet.com/article/86lls7/beyonce-wins-blue-ivy-tra...
arp242 2y ago
He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots. This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a trademark and hijack my domain?
- InvaderFizz 2y ago
  They can try through the UDRP, but your easy defense is to point that the date registered exceeds their TM by years. The UDRP would be highly likely to end in your favor should you dispute.
- devrand 2y ago
  I think they generally give a lot of weight to someone who registered the domain well ahead of the said company registering their mark. Though you might run into trouble if you started using the domain in bad-faith against that company (ex. impersonating them). In your example, you had that domain well in advance, it's your self-identified pseudonym that predates said mark, and it's actively being used to host your personal website. That seems like a pretty strong defense.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. so he didn't much care about it as his email address as he generally used his other domain christian-scipio.de? https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact
  - devrand 2y ago
    It sounds like they intended to use it as the primary e-mail domain for himself and family. They claimed that they had already switched to using it. However, the total window of time here is small. They registered the domain in late November 2023 and this UDRP was filed in late February 2024. It also sounds like initial contact to try to acquire the domain occurred in early December 2023... so only a couple days after it was registered.
subpub47 2y ago
They don't. What are we going to do? Nothing.
sva_ 2y ago
Perhaps survivorship bias, in that most go under without a fight and we never hear of them.
hcfman 2y ago
Very interesting this. Disappointing that they did not add any extra punishment for being bastards to the complainant

by new299 2y ago

fxtentacle 2y ago

Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.

cowsandmilk 2y ago
> And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name. Actually, the company’s trademarks are from 2017 and he got his name via marriage in 2020. Still a stupid suit
- freehorse 2y ago
  Yes, but they registered it in 2022, which makes the case even more hopeless.
bitwize 2y ago
Prince Rogers Nelson's given name was a registered trademark of Warner Music. It took that whole stunt with him changing his name to Love Symbol #2 to get them to relent.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  wow. i didn't know that prince was the same as prince rogers nelson (only vaguely remembered the name prince as a musician from dances at high school), so googled his name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)
wlesieutre 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...
- account42 2y ago
  Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
  - bugmenow 2y ago
    Also in France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods
runeb 2y ago
Curiously, Scipio is also arguably one of the most famous family names from Roman Antiquity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus

jojobas 2y ago

Remember how KPMG claimed nobody is allowed to link to their site? I 'member.

richbell 2y ago

When I opened that link, I didn't except to be captivated by what is otherwise a boring procedural document. Shame on SCIPIO.

erredois 2y ago

Remindes me of someone I met a long time ago that had the Zeppelin last name, and could not use on Facebook because and agreement between Facebook and the band Led Zeppelin blocked it.

djbusby 2y ago
Yet, someone squatting my trademarked name (profile URL) on FB and I can't get it.

herman_toothrot 2y ago

RIP Uzi Nissan of Nissan Computer Company.

diego_sandoval 2y ago

Mr. Scipio had to provide evidence, lose his privacy and justify his use of the domain name to avoid losing it. That is enough proof to conclude that this UDRP thing is deeply unfair and should not exist. "First come, first served" is much more fair than this "burden of proof falls on the defendant" nonsense. We'll have to replace ICANN with something better at some point.

fsckboy 2y ago
He's worried about his privacy? He reveals all on his website https://www.christian-scipio.de/ https://www.christian-scipio.de/
- diego_sandoval 2y ago
  What matters is the general case. We shouldn't be required to expose our personal lives to be able to retain our domain names.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it. I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well. There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain. I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse.
- diego_sandoval 2y ago
  What would have happened if Scipio refused to provide his marriage papers? Would he have lost the domain? How could he know beforehand? If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain". > 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country. I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration. * And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.

madaxe_again 2y ago

In my experience, businesses which are the most vigorous about pursuing frivolous IP claims and lawsuits are usually dishonest entities which themselves trample and steal the IP of others. I have twice found myself defending my IP rights when a business in one case, a government ministry in another, attempted to dispute my right to use the work that they had themselves stolen, wholesale.

jrs235 2y ago

It brings more eyeballs and attention to them when they do this and makes uninformed or unopinionated people view them negatively. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Terr_ 2y ago

Kinda wish the company got more than a slap on the wrist for such nonsense. > While the Complainant may have 'sailed very close to the wind' in this case [...] the Complainant's conduct in this case does not appear to fall squarely into the realm of any of the above mentioned [Reverse Domain Name Highjacking] circumstances. Therefore, the Panel has decided not to make a finding of RDNH on this occasion. The Panel however cautions the Complainant to only invoke the [Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy] Policy in the future in circumstances under which the Complainant is able to identify the bases and adduce evidence in respect of all three UDRP Policy grounds. So yeah, name-n-shame on their leadership such as *checks* CEO Pierre Chaumat and friends. [0] [0] https://scipio.bio/news/scipio-bioscience-appoints-new-ceo-to-usher-the-next-development-phases https://scipio.bio/news/scipio-bioscience-appoints-new-ceo-t...

gonzo41 2y ago

Well it worked out for Beyonce and when she trademarked her kids name https://www.bet.com/article/86lls7/beyonce-wins-blue-ivy-trademark-dispute https://www.bet.com/article/86lls7/beyonce-wins-blue-ivy-tra...

arp242 2y ago

He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots. This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a trademark and hijack my domain?

InvaderFizz 2y ago
They can try through the UDRP, but your easy defense is to point that the date registered exceeds their TM by years. The UDRP would be highly likely to end in your favor should you dispute.
devrand 2y ago
I think they generally give a lot of weight to someone who registered the domain well ahead of the said company registering their mark. Though you might run into trouble if you started using the domain in bad-faith against that company (ex. impersonating them). In your example, you had that domain well in advance, it's your self-identified pseudonym that predates said mark, and it's actively being used to host your personal website. That seems like a pretty strong defense.
fsckboy 2y ago
>He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. so he didn't much care about it as his email address as he generally used his other domain christian-scipio.de? https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact
- devrand 2y ago
  It sounds like they intended to use it as the primary e-mail domain for himself and family. They claimed that they had already switched to using it. However, the total window of time here is small. They registered the domain in late November 2023 and this UDRP was filed in late February 2024. It also sounds like initial contact to try to acquire the domain occurred in early December 2023... so only a couple days after it was registered.

subpub47 2y ago

They don't. What are we going to do? Nothing.

sva_ 2y ago

Perhaps survivorship bias, in that most go under without a fight and we never hear of them.

hcfman 2y ago

Very interesting this. Disappointing that they did not add any extra punishment for being bastards to the complainant