Facebook filed a lawsuit against New Ventures Services Corp. / Web.com - Domain Abuse

pdf attached

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/n...g-and-the-risk-of-getting-served-with-a-udrp/



@Acroplex

https://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/...td-ameritrade-for-36k-on-namejet-com-auction/



https://web.archive.org/web/2015052...ctions/StandardDetails.aspx?auctionid=3685062

This, right here, is why you don't just ignore UDRPs.

If you ended up with a bad name because of a portfolio purchase or whatever, and you get a UDRP, do not be that person who says, "Oh, it's just a UDRP. Just let them take it." The UDRP has a procedure (Rule 17) where you can voluntarily transfer the domain name and terminate the case, provided the other side agrees to do so. It is worth the effort.

The ultimate goal is not to obtain the domain names or monetary damages. That's not the point.

The prospect of high liability is simply an incentive for Web.com to settle with Facebook and to agree to a roster of conditions that Facebook has been unable to obtain as policy at ICANN - things like handing over registrant data, taking down names which FB considers infringing, blocking various terms that FB does not want registered, and so on.

http://dotweekly.com/network-solutions-takes-customers-valid-domain-holds-it-hostage/

So a company can continue trading while getting hit with multiple UDRP's over a number of years?

I know it's not good for the businesses reputation, but they can still trade which I find quite unbelievable - they seem to have been fraudulently making money on a consistent basis by the look of it....and have not been put of by these UDRP cases.....so continue to do it

When does ICANN actually step up and start to take action on blatant fraud? Or do they have no power to intervene?

Related Coverage: https://domainnamewire.com/2021/04/16/facebook-sues-web-coms-nvsc-for-cybersquatting/

Facebook alleges that NVCS holds at least 74 domain names that infringe its marks, including FacebookBusinessLeads .com, Instagram-Online .com and InstallWhatsApp .com.

Many of these domains are parked with links to a Network Solutions page where the domains can be purchased for as little as $300.

Click to expand...

Eerily similar pricing strategy to:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/i-...le-on-sav-for-280.1234622/page-4#post-8238740

Grilled said:

EliteDomains (which appears to be previously or still connected to Sav.com CEO @AnthosChrysnathou) needs to do a better job vetting domains priced with a $280 BIN...

https://www.facebook.com/business/a/use-offers

Click to expand...

Grilled said:

Click to expand...

Most (if not all?) of these domains have some sort of registration history, and a possible previous use story to go with,

Take CaptionsForInsta.com for example:



It was previously registered for 1 year @namesilo where it looks like the previous registrant didn't renew. The previous owner looks to have used the domain in an instagram profile, and linked the domain in various other places of the internet.



Then, it looks to have been caught at:

Creation Date: 2020-08-21T18:24:10Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2021-08-21T18:24:10Z
Registrar: Aegean Domains LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 3800

...

Thus, potentially locking CaptionsFor_Insta out of their instagram profile, should that profile had used [email protected] email address at sign up. This may not be the case here, but things link this happen, forcing a previous domain registrant to subsequently pay a ransom type payment if they want to regain access to the previous credential in a timely manner. The previous domain owner might not have expected any competition for this domain, and may have assumed they could reregister the domain for a modest registration fee at a later date.

...

Current Use:



Parked Via: as-drid-2604889911753328



>



>



...

I wonder if a domain like CaptionsForInsta.com would have ever made it to Facebook/Instagrams legal eye of concern, if for not connected to NVSC.

Are the other 11 *****ForInsta.com at the same risk of being hit with a UDRP/Legal proceeding as well?

Grilled said:

I wonder if a domain like CaptionsForInsta.com would have ever made it to Facebook/Instagrams legal eye of concern, if for not connected to NVSC.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. The point here is to obtain settlement conditions on Web/Register/Netsol that will require them to do what FB (and their friends) want them to do in the future.

If they can get Web/Register/Netsol to agree that they will shut down any names that FB tells them to shut down in the future, then they don't have to mess around with individual domain name registrants.

It's merely a question of time before the FB lawyers ask Dan to stop accepting their TM names. 1000s of names

Lox said:

It's merely a question of time before the FB lawyers ask Dan to stop accepting their TM names. 1000s of names

Click to expand...

tagging @DAN.COM




It's not like Dan doesn't have the ability to block certain text strings. They previously cracked down on "coronavirus" domains.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/sellers-cant-sell-coronavirus-domain-names-on-dan-com.1182732/

jberryhill said:

No, it wouldn't. The point here is to obtain settlement conditions on Web/Register/Netsol that will require them to do what FB (and their friends) want them to do in the future.

If they can get Web/Register/Netsol to agree that they will shut down any names that FB tells them to shut down in the future, then they don't have to mess around with individual domain name registrants.

Click to expand...

Can't Web/Register/NetSol just threaten to invalidate FaceBook/Instagram trademark to hopefully force a settlement similar to the Epik BC30.com play?

Grilled said:

it appears that a domain name registrar <epik.com> threatened to invalidate the trademark <BC30> of a former customer <Michael Bush/Ganeden> in retaliation for losing a UDRP for domain name <BC30.com> of which epik had acquired through warehousing, after acquiring IntrustDomains.

Click to expand...

Rob Monster said:

the case was settled out of court on amicable terms. We dropped our civil action and the defendant has their domain. The exact terms of the settlement will not be disclosed.

The point of this entire exercise was to confirm that it is indeed possible to overturn an erroneous UDRP decision through a civil action.

Click to expand...

Grilled said:

Can't Web/Register/NetSol just threaten to invalidate FaceBook/Instagram trademark to hopefully force a settlement similar to the Epik BC30.com play?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that is intended as a joke, but in any event, there are no grounds to invalidate the Facebook or Instagram trademarks, which by now are two of the best known trademarks on the planet.

I am wondering why NamePros, domain gang and thedomains are considered as authoritative sources of information to be mentioned in U.S. lawsuit (or in any lawsuit?). Just an educational question, as I am not familiar with U.S. legal system ;-()

In this particular case the quotes are relevant and correct, but, generally speaking, how can a court count on something posted in an open blog or forum by unrelated 3rd party?

tonyk2000 said:

I am wondering why NamePros, domain gang and thedomains are considered as authoritative sources of information to be mentioned in U.S. lawsuit (or in any lawsuit?). Just an educational question, as I am not familiar with U.S. legal system ;-()

In this particular case the quotes are relevant and correct, but, generally speaking, how can a court count on something posted in an open blog or forum by unrelated 3rd party?

Click to expand...

interesting read 40 pages pdf - BLOGS IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS

Alessandro Couteau said:

FaceBook is trying to get a piece of the action,

http://domainincite.com/26568-faceb...latest-27-million-plus-cybersquatting-lawsuit

Click to expand...

So web.com will fetch at least 1billion Dollar

Referencing the DG article from June 2019; the information provided in the article was factual and sourced from UDRPsearch. Now, to include it as exhibit in the lawsuit, the plaintiff most likely cross checked the information provided and verified it.

Here's a quick search for the UDRP cases: https://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=New+Ventures&search=parties

tonyk2000 said:

I am wondering why NamePros, domain gang and thedomains are considered as authoritative sources of information to be mentioned in U.S. lawsuit (or in any lawsuit?). Just an educational question, as I am not familiar with U.S. legal system ;-()

In this particular case the quotes are relevant and correct, but, generally speaking, how can a court count on something posted in an open blog or forum by unrelated 3rd party?

Click to expand...

Haroon Basha said:

So web.com will fetch at least 1billion Dollar

Click to expand...

We aren’t quite there in the market just yet for just one domain ... the extension .web sold for $135M to Verisign which privately lended the money to “Nu Dot” in 2016 to make the acquisition on their behalf

Haroon Basha said:

So web.com will fetch at least 1billion Dollar

Click to expand...

This isn’t really about web.com though -
(I corrected the title)

This is about Facebook bringing a large case against web.com in the amount of $27M for owning and cyber squatting on their names

jberryhill said:

I'm not sure if that is intended as a joke, but in any event, there are no grounds to invalidate the Facebook or Instagram trademarks, which by now are two of the best known trademarks on the planet.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to waste your valuable time with the obvious. As Web.com/NetworkSolutions are no doubt aware of FaceBook and Instagram, as evident by their usage of the respective platforms.

jberryhill said:

No, it wouldn't. The point here is to obtain settlement conditions on Web/Register/Netsol that will require them to do what FB (and their friends) want them to do in the future.

If they can get Web/Register/Netsol to agree that they will shut down any names that FB tells them to shut down in the future, then they don't have to mess around with individual domain name registrants.

Click to expand...

The point being, if FaceBook gains the right to shut down any domain FaceBook tells Web.com etc to, doesn't that raise greater concern, of when/how is a trademark officially recognized, and/or how other marketplaces/registrars would be pressured to follow suit?

In 2013, TechCrunch wrote about InstaGram cracking down on connected apps using "insta" or "gram".

https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-connected-apps-using-insta-and-gram/

Seeing how some of the domains cited in this lawsuit don't contain the full Instagram or FaceBook mark, eg. instafollower98.com, real-insta-followers.com, instafollowers.info, ezinstafollowers.com, captionsforinsta.com, HacksDoInsta.com granting Facebook a deal with web.com to take down any domains FB (and their friends) want them to, seems that it could create a problematic precedent.

Lox said:

It's merely a question of time before the FB lawyers ask Dan to stop accepting their TM names. 1000s of names

Click to expand...

If Dan.com were to take down all FaceBook domains, would they need to proactively remove other globally recognized trademark domains? And when does something become globally recognized to the point of a total takedown, does popularity, such as an Alexa metric play a factor? $$$ spent on radio or cable advertising?



...



...



...