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:
1,530

  1. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    I just stumbled upon this on my FaceBook feed. Apparently Network Solutions knows a thing or two about preemptively mitigating the risk of trademark infringement.

    upload_2021-4-16_11-15-40.png
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. platey

    platey Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    facebook either owns or has access to a large portfolio of trademarks and patents due to its purchase? of some of microsofts trademarks back in the day

    allegedly
     
  3. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,281
    I think they should consider to focus more on protecting their platform from the tm listings (obvious tm) and at the same time keep the trust and integrity on a high level. Right now, this doesn't look good / trustworthy.

    Regards
     
  4. jberryhill

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

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    That's the point. That's why they are doing this.

    One of the reasons for going after registrars is that there is no need to go after domain market platforms or monetization platforms. If people want to waste their money buying trademark typos on Dan.com, that's more their own problem than anything else.

    But, no, Dan.com can list or refuse to list whatever they want. There's no rule requiring them to be consistent. Anyone who wants to sue them for "trafficking" in cybersquatted domain names can also give that a whirl if they want to.

    Like any business, you manage legal risk however you and your attorneys think is the best way to do that.

    But, hey, has anyone parked a domain name with Oversee.net lately? No.

    One of the contributors to the eventual demise of Oversee was that they were turned into a cash machine by trademark claimants.

    There's a whole conga line of folks right behind Facebook who will be happy to file the same suit with their marks, in the event that Web.com ends up paying out or giving significant concessions in the event they settle this.

    But, on the other hand, there aren't too many registrars running an operations as historically, um, "interesting" as the history of New Ventures Services. I believe they even used to deny it was theirs before they had to disclose their interest in it.

    I'd be fascinated to know what the NVSC business is worth, as a portion of the bottom line of Web.com.
     
  5. jberryhill

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

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    This isn't a judicial opinion, nor is it evidence that has been deemed admissible for any purpose. This is just a complaint. You can attach whatever you want to a complaint. The pleadings in a civil suit (complaint, response) are just the skinny little end of a whole process.

    Quite recently, we all witnessed the phenomenon of setting up a website that would automatically generate "affidavits" out of whatever random people wanted to say, and then attaching those affidavits to lawsuits.

    Those things are just in there primarily for theater. They aren't essential to any actual count in the lawsuit.

    A civil complaint consists of allegations. Actually proving anything comes much later on. Now, there is a requirement that the allegations of the complaint be plausible.

    Now, if you are seeking an immediate ruling, like an injunction, and your "evidence" consists of things you invited anonymous people to type into a web form that would generate affidavits out of whatever these random people on the internet typed in, then you are going to have a reliability problem:



    So, sure, you can file a lawsuit backed up by "100's of sworn affidavits" from people you don't know and which you have no idea are actually true. Just don't expect to get very far with it.

    But nobody gives a crap whether anything in those postings are true. At best, they are evidence of the reputation of NVSC on various domain blogs, but they are not offered for the truth of the statements within them for the purpose of proving any particular claim. They are simply allegations.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  6. Super-Annuation

    Super-Annuation Restricted (Market)

    Posts:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Okay

    Say I have a company that sells shirts, and I trademark one of the shirt brands and call it called Smartify.

    If a domainer owns smartify .com do I have a claim? Absolutely not. No brand dilution, no consumer confusion, and I don't have TM pull outside of Class 25 unless it causes one of the first two.

    How are facebook claiming cybersquatting, unless they're domain names like FacebookSucks, InstagramSucks etc.

    Just curious.
     
  7. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    838
    The names in question have their names in them like you just mentioned ^

    one of the names is something like that >>> Facebbok.com ... etc.
     
  8. Super-Annuation

    Super-Annuation Restricted (Market)

    Posts:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Thanks @alessandro, this makes sense. It's early and I need a coffee.
     
  9. jberryhill

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

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    The point about blog posts is probably worth elaborating on a bit.

    Many, many years ago, before the commercial internet was a thing, and the "internet" consisted primarily of university researchers and government contractors, someone asked "Could email be used as evidence in a court case."

    My answer that was along the lines of:

    "If I printed out all of my email, rolled it up into a thick tube, and beat you to death with it, then, yes, my email is going to be evidence in my trial."

    So, just like when you see "trademark", you should ask "trademark for what?", when you see "evidence" you should ask "evidence of what?"

    All of those blog posts, etc, are merely hearsay, if they are presented for the truth of anything which is in them.

    The thing they presented as "evidence of" is:

    Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 5.37.54 PM.png

    What that says is that "for many years, domain name consumers have complained" about NVSC.

    It's not about whether ANY of those complaints were true. It's about the fact that people were complaining.

    It is a foundation to, later on, look into how NVSC is run and what is its relationship to the management of the registrars Web/Register/Netsol. NVSC is the alleged cybersquatter. But that company can be rolled up and thrown away with no great damage to the remaining business of Web/Register/Netsol and whatever else has been rolled up into the registrar operation of Web.com.

    Maybe a different example would help.

    I'm in court and I'm testifying that I think my wife is crazy. A lawyer asks me why I think she's crazy, and I say, "Well, she said she was the Queen of France."

    Now, the other lawyer is not going to jump up and say that's hearsay. Why? Because what is at issue is not whether or not my wife is the Queen of France. What is at issue is whether she's crazy. Her statement that she thinks she's the Queen of France is not offered as proof of whether she's the Queen of France. It's offered as proof that she said something crazy.

    That's what those blog postings are doing in this complaint. They are simply there as evidence that for many years domain name consumers have complained about the s--t they've been pulling with NVSC for years. But they are not there to prove that any of the complaints were in fact true.

    But that's what makes this the cybersquatting suit that everyone can love.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  10. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,281
  11. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    838
    All good 🤵🏼☕️
     
  12. Samer

    Samer Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    10,032
    Likes Received:
    19,171
    Did Facebook ever win the NameCheap 1?

    Notice, they’re very aggressive protect their IP.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  13. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    838
  14. Lox

    Lox _____ VIP Gold Account

    Posts:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    5,281
    ... protecting ppl from scammers / fraudsters who try to steal the money or infos etc. For years, FB didn't care much about domains but now ... the security is priority.

    Regards
     
  15. Samer

    Samer Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    10,032
    Likes Received:
    19,171
    Still seems like they are in court lot these days.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  16. Samer

    Samer Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    10,032
    Likes Received:
    19,171
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  17. jberryhill

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

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

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

    Posts:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    No that is not correct.

    A lot of things happen during a lawsuit. You are confusing a ruling on a preliminary motion with the lawsuit itself.

    The link you provided is a ruling on a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Namecheap's motion, but provided Facebook the opportunity to amend the complaint (which is fairly normal). Facebook amended the complaint, and the case is continuing on Namecheap's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

    The docket is here:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16931638/facebook-incorporated-v-namecheap-incorporated/
     
  19. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
  20. Alessandro Couteau

    Alessandro Couteau Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    838
    Thank you for the correction ^ so Facebook and Namecheap are still at it, craziness
     
  21. Grilled

    Grilled xn--n48h.to VIP

    Posts:
    6,169
    Likes Received:
    9,200
    The Facebook link @Lox cited in the OP basically stated as much...

    https://about.fb.com/news/2021/04/protecting-people-from-domain-abuse/
    ...

    https://about.fb.com/news/2020/03/domain-name-lawsuit/
    ...

    https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/fighting-domain-name-fraud/
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  22. lock

    lock DomainUsed.com VIP

    Posts:
    5,612
    Likes Received:
    5,858
    And deservingly so it wasn't a one off.
     
  23. ReallyBigIdea.com

    ReallyBigIdea.com Restricted (Chatroom)

    Posts:
    822
    Likes Received:
    724
    new venture services is not automated processing i think they are handpicks expired domains. most of my netsol domains was grabbed by new venture serv but some was really expired and dropped.

    e. g. you registered webcomsucks.com with netsol or webcom and let expire it obviously the new venture serv will not keep it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  24. scithe

    scithe Upgraded Member Gold Account ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    201
    Likes Received:
    102
    Paypal tried to take Paypalsucks.com from their owners and lost. But the site was a developed site and not a parked domain. If I recall correctly, they were allowed to keep the domain as it was fair use. Same thing happened when Screech tried to get DustinDiamond.com

    In the case of Facebbok or whatever site, they might be phishing sites so that's not fair use.
     
  25. Super-Annuation

    Super-Annuation Restricted (Market)

    Posts:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Fair play
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
NameWorth
  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...