Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2012
City of Paris ordered to pay USD 100,000+ for reverse domain name hijacking

With order of 14 September 2012, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has ordered the City of Paris, France, to pay USD 100,000 in statutory damages (plus attorneys' fees) to Jeffery Walter, who had registered the domain name parvi.org in 2006 and lost it in a WIPO UDRP proceeding to the city of Paris in 2009.

What happened? Walter had registered parvi.org allegedly unaware of the rights of the City of Paris in the trade mark PARVI. Despite intially amiable contacts, the City of Paris sued for transfer of the domain name under the UDRP and won the transfer of the domain (Case No. D2009-1278 ). The respondent Jeffrey Walter was not content and sued Paris before the Federal District Court for reverse domain name hijacking under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(ii)(iv), because, as he claims, he was not in bad faith when registering the domain name in 2006.

The City of Paris did probably not realize that by initiating UDRP proceedings, it subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the court at the seat of the registrar, which in this case was Texas. In any case, it did not respond to the suit filed before the District Court, and the court entered a default judgment (Case no. 4:2009cv03939). Whether Walter will be able to collect on this in France is questionable, but I would be surprised if the City of Paris had no assets in the US - be it even other domain names registered with registrars domiciled in the US. 

You can find more information on the dispute here (by the lawyers for Jeffrey Walter, beware of hyperbole).

For the practioner, the lesson of this case is that you have to be aware that under the UDRP, you subject the claimant to the jurisdiction at the seat of the registrar, and that is very often the US, which has anti reverse domain name hijacking provisions that bite.

Posted by: Mark Schweizer @ 16.09
Tags: UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2988
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox