NameSilo

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

Labeled as legal in Domain Industry News, started by Lox, Apr 15, 2021

Replies:
49
Views:
1,528

  1. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,277
    This week, FB filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania against New Ventures Services Corp. (NVSC), a company that has repeatedly engaged in cybersquatting activities. NVSC registered hundreds of lookalike domain names that could be used to deceive people by impersonating Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

    Fake domain names are frequently used in many types of scams, such as phishing campaigns, tech support scams and reward scams, to trick people into thinking a site is connected to a legitimate company. To protect people from harm, we regularly scan the internet for domain names and apps that infringe on our trademarks. We identified a large number of domain names that were used or resold by NVSC or its affiliates over the years that could reasonably be used to impersonate Facebook and our services, such as <instagram-login.com>, <facebooked.net> and <installwhatsapps.com>.

    read more (facebook)
     
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 10.02.04 AM.png

    pdf attached
     

    Attached Files:

  3. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
  4. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
  5. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
  6. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
  7. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    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.

    Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 10.44.14 AM.png
     
  8. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    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.
     
  9. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
  10. NickB

    NickB it's a mystery VIP

    Posts:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    11,353
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  11. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    Related Coverage: https://domainnamewire.com/2021/04/16/facebook-sues-web-coms-nvsc-for-cybersquatting/

    Eerily similar pricing strategy to:

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

     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  12. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
  13. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200

    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:

    upload_2021-4-16_8-36-50.png

    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.

    upload_2021-4-16_8-28-47.png

    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:

    upload_2021-4-16_9-14-1.png

    Parked Via: as-drid-2604889911753328

    upload_2021-4-16_8-39-3.png

    >

    upload_2021-4-16_8-41-6.png

    >

    upload_2021-4-16_8-42-19.png

    ...

    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?

    upload_2021-4-16_8-47-50.png
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  14. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  15. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,277
    It's merely a question of time before the FB lawyers ask Dan to stop accepting their TM names. 1000s of names
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  16. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  17. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    Can't Web/Register/NetSol just threaten to invalidate FaceBook/Instagram trademark to hopefully force a settlement similar to the Epik BC30.com play?


     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  18. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    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.
     
  19. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    3,860
    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?
     
  20. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,277
    interesting read 40 pages pdf - BLOGS IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS
     
  21. Haroon Basha

    Haroon Basha IZUQ.COM VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,612
    Likes Received:
    5,514
  22. Acroplex

    Acroplex Top Member DomainGang.com PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    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

     
  23. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    836
    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
     
  24. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    836
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  25. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    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.

    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.

    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?

    upload_2021-4-16_11-3-10.png

    ...

    upload_2021-4-16_11-3-35.png

    ...

    upload_2021-4-16_11-4-11.png

    ...

    upload_2021-4-16_11-18-53.png
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
biix
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...