Dynadot

news Outside Interactive sues to get outside.com

Spaceship Spaceship
Subscribe to section Watch
LAWSUITS-1024x536.jpg

Company tried to get the domain name via UDRP over 15 years ago. Outside Interactive, a sports and outdoor media company, has sued the owner of outside.com in an effort to get the domain name. It’s the company’s second attempt to acquire the domain through legal means. In 2006, the company’s predecessor-in-interest filed a cybersquatting...

Continue Reading →
 
 
Click to expand...
2
2 Thanks
0 Like
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Sort by date Sort by points
I did not read this case but in general, the fact that big penalties are not issued to anyone involved in a reverse domain hijacking attempt is what causes others to try. I think businesses should know if they do this and it is determined that they tried to steal the name, their entire business is given to the domain owner.
 
Click to expand...
Reply
0
0 Like
0 Thanks
•••
A multinational company that has acquired several companies continues to operate on a marginal domain name like OutsideInc.com because the owners and management are cheap.

The blog post says the company first contracted a GoDaddy Broker to make an offer for the domain name. The deal failed because the broker would not go beyond $5M and the owner wanted more.

The owner reached out directly to the company after the deal with the GoDaddy Broker failed and the company is now using that as some kind of a "gotcha" argument.

I hope the domain owner countersues the company for legal fees and damages for the stress they caused him.
 
Click to expand...
Reply
1
1 Thanks
0 Like
•••
Gabriel360 said:
The owner reached out directly to the company after the deal with the GoDaddy Broker failed and the company is now using that as some kind of a "gotcha" argument.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a thing.

(i) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, so I don't know how good of a chance they actually have.
 
Click to expand...
Reply
0
0 Like
0 Thanks
•••
You must log in or register to comment here.

Similar threads

DomainNameWire
  • Article
news Domain investor sues Rob Monster and old Epik over $1 million+ missing funds
0 comments
394 views
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
  • Article
news Cybersecurity company fails to grab keeper .com in cybersquatting dispute
0 comments
248 views
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
  • Article
news Pool company spat results in reverse domain name hijacking
0 comments
273 views
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
  • Article
news That’s smelling: Poop scooping company tries reverse domain hijacking
0 comments
205 views
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire
  • Article
news Jesus performs miracle to win cybersquatting case
0 comments
245 views
DomainNameWire
DomainNameWire

We're social

Latest news

Escrow.com

New posts

Auction activity

Domain Recover

Polls of interest

Catchy

Popular this week

Efty Pay

Community favorite

Popular this month

Blog favorites

  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back