Source: http://legalcornerpress.com/links/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:54:03+00:00

Document:
Appendix A appeared in the First Edition of Domain Name Arbitration and is here updated and Appendix B is new for the Second Edition scheduled for publication December 2018. They are published here with live links for convenience of those wishing to examine the documents or court decisions. The E-book will have live links.
Airfx.com v. Airfx LLC., CV 11-01064 (D.Ariz. October 20, 2011) (Respondent in Airfx, LLC v. Attn Airfx.com, FA1104001384655 (Forum May 16, 2011) (Court held registration and renewal of the domain name was not unlawful. The issue of damages for reverse domain name hijacking was not before the court but it invited an application).
Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 626 (4th Cir. 2003) (Respondent in Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona v. Barcelona.com Inc. D2000-0505 (WIPO August 7, 2000) (District Court Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions).
Mann v. AFN Invs., Ltd., CV-07-0083 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2007) (Question whether Court has jurisdiction when the domain name has not been transferred. Answer: A UDRP decision to transfer the domain name “triggers the right to sue” for declaratory relief under the ACPA).
Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2001) (Respondent in Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. David Sallen, Sallen Enterprises, and J. D. Sallen Enterprises, D2000-0461 (WIPO July 17, 2000).
Walter v. Ville de Paris, 4:2009cv03939 (S.D. Texas Houston Div.) (<parvi.org>. Respondent in Ville de Paris v. Jeff Walter, D2009-1278 (WIPO November 19, 2009. Award vacated on default; judgement included award of damages in the amount of $100,000).
iSystems v. Spark Network, 3:08-cv-1175-N (N.D. TX, Dallas Div. September 19, 2014) (Unreported) (Respondent in Spark Networks PLC v. J2DATE, Inc., FA0505000482640 (Forum June 28, 2005) (Unreported: “[T]he NAF arbitration award was not based on any misrepresentation that the JDate Domain was dilutive of the JDATE Mark, but rather on the true representation that the JDate Domain was identical to, or confusingly similar to, the JDATE Mark,” Paragraph 10 Conclusions of Law).
Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 708 F.Supp.2d 1150 (WDWA, 2007), aff’d 586 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) and 636 F.3rd 501 (9th Cir. 2011) (Respondent in Vericheck, Inc. v. Admin Manager, FA0606000734799 (Forum August 2, 2006) (Confirmed, with damages and attorney’s fees).
Web-Adviso v. Trump, 927 F.Supp.2d 32 (E.D.N.Y., 2013) (Respondent in Donald J. Trump v. Web-adviso, D2010-2220 (WIPO March 5, 2011) (Confirmed with damages in the amount of $32,000).
Yung v. Bank of America Corp. 1:2009cv05769 (S.D.N.Y. 2-16-2010), aff’d 448 F. App’x 95, 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (Respondent in Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. v. Webadviso, FA090300 1254121(Forum May 15, 2009).
Bulbs 4 E. Side, Inc. v. Ricks, 199 F.Supp.3d 1151 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div. August 10, 2016) (Complainant in Bulbs 4 East Side Inc., d/b/a Just Bulbs v. Fundacion Private Whois/ Gregory Ricks, D2013-1779 (WIPO January 13, 2014) (Vacated with $50,000 and attorney’s fees)).
Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Volvospares, 703 F.Supp.2d 563 (E.D. Va. Apr. 1, 2010) (unreported) (Complainant in Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Volvospares / Keith White, D2008-1860 (WIPO February 10, 2009).
Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir., 2003) (Respondent in five UDRPs, D2000-1323, D2000-1326,D2000-1327, D2000-1328, and D2000-1315 (WIPO 2000) (Unregistered mark: “[T]he Lanham Act extends protection to marks that meet the statutory requirements for being ‘used in commerce,’ provided they also enjoy secondary meaning.” Defendants satisfied that requirement).
Victoria’s Secret Stores v. Artco Equipment Co., 194 F.Supp.2d 704 (S.D. Ohio, 2002) (Complainant in Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, Inc., Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc. and Intimate Brands, Inc. d/b/a Victoria’s Secret Beauty v. ARTCO, Inc. FA 94342 (Forum May 9, 2000) (<Victoriassecrets.net>)) (Plaintiff commenced action for the specific purpose of obtaining attorney’s fees and damages; the Court entered judgment awarding award atty fees in the amount of $149,781.92 and statutory damages in the amount of $50,000.00 plus interest).
Yoyo.email Limited v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Others, EWHC 3509 (Ch) (Respondent in Bank of Scotland Plc v. GYoyo Email / Yoyo.Email Limited, D2015-1079 (WIPO August 25, 2015) (Chancery rejected for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Ezquest, Inc. V. Baorui, 2:12-cv-730 (D. Utah, Central Division) (Complainant in EZQUEST, INC. v. BAORUI, FA1205001445631 (Forum July 12, 2012) (Chinese defendant attempting a Paragraph 4(k) filing in China to frustrate transfer. Injunction preventing registry from transferring domain names to a foreign registrar).
Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir., 2004) (Defendant contended First Amendment rights; enjoined from using the infringing domain names).
Nguyen v. Biondo, 11-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla.) (District Court awarded damages in the amount of $850,000 plus another significant amount for attorney’s fees and costs for trademark infringement and cybersquatting (aff’d 508 F. App’x 932 unpublished decision (11th Cir. 2013).
Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse, 359 F.3d 806, 809 (6th Cir. 2004) ((consumer complaining about nursery’s work was not liable under ACPA).
Mayflower Transit, L.L.C. v. Prince, 314 F.Supp.2d 362 (D.N.J. 2004) (Registrant’s motive was to express dissatisfaction in doing business with the mark’s owner).
Randazza v. Cox, 920 F.Supp.2d 1151 (D. Nevada, 2013) (granting temporary injunction and ordering the domain names transferred to plaintiff). See also Marc J. Randazza v. Reverend Crystal Cox, Eliot Bernstein, D2012-1525 (WIPO November 30, 2012).
Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse, 359 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir.2004).
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., 859 N.W.2d 527 (Minn.App. 2-2-2015) (Garnishable).
Network Solutions v. Umbro International, Inc., 529 S.E. 80, 86-87 (Va. 2000), citing Dorer v Arel, 60 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Va 1999) (Pre-UDRP) (Not garnishable, 4th Circuit).
(Parties settle disputes for a variety of reasons including business decisions based on the cost, time, and effort litigating the merits of their claims and defenses. Settlements do not add to the jurisprudence but parties to claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act are particularly challenged because of the financial consequences for cybersquatting and trademark overreaching. It is not unlikely that ACPA settlements represent strategic withdrawals when parties realize their position exposes them to attorney’s fees and damages up to $100,000 for each domain name).
Domain Asset Holdings, LLC. v. Blue Ridge Fiberboard, Inc., 2:16-cv-00520 (W.D. Washington July 15, 2016) (Respondent in Blue Ridge Fiberboard, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Domain Asset Holdings, LLC, FA1602001661150 (Forum March 29, 2016) (<soundstop>. Stipulation for Dismissal of Action. Jurisdiction retained for the purpose of enforcing parties’ settlement agreement).
Telepathy, Inc, Development Services v. Corporacion Empresarial Altra S.L., 1:17-cv-01030 (D. District of Columbia, November 28, 2017) (Respondent in Corporacion Empresarial Altra S.L. v. Development Services, Telepathy, Inc., D2017-0178 (WIPO May 15, 2017) (<airzone.com>. The Panel denied the complaint but rejected sanctioning Complainant. Respondent thereupon commenced an action under the ACPA for reverse domain name damages and defendant settled by stipulating to pay plaintiff $40,000 dollars).
Hugedomains.com, LLC. v. Wills, 14-cv-00946 (D.Colorado July 21, 2015) (Respondent in Austin Pain Associates v. Jeffrey Reberry, FA1312001536356 (Forum March 18, 2014) (“Plaintiff did not register or use <austinpain.com> domain name in bad faith and had no bad faith intent to profit from the domain name.” Parties agreed to a consent judgment in which Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $25,000).
Mrs. Jello, LLC v. Camilla Australia Pty Ltd. 15-cv-08753 (D. NJ 8/1/2016) (Respondent in Camilla Australia Pty Ltd v. Domain Admin, Mrs Jello, LLC., D2015-1593 (WIPO November 30, 2015) (Discontinuance with prejudice; domain name remains with Plaintiff).
Global Access c/o domain admin v. EducationDynamics, LLC,  QSC 373 (Respondent in EducationDynamics, LLC v. Global Access c/o domain admin, FA0905001265489 (Forum July 22, 2009) (Transferred. Court has subject matter jurisdiction but granted motion to deposit security and Plaintiff discontinued the action).
Muhsin E.Thiebaut, Walid Victor v. Teamreager AB, Paris Court of Appeal (November 8, 2016) Respondent in Teamreager AB contre Muhsin E.Thiebaut, Walid Victor, D2013-0835 (WIPO July 29, 2013) (<moobittalk.com>. Declaration in favor of Respondent and domain name returned). Discussion of the Paris Court of Appeal at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c.
Patel v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc.,  EWHC 1730 (Ch) (Sonia Proudman QC) (Respondent in Allos Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kumar Patel, D2007-0521 (WIPO June 11, 2007) (UDRP Award confirmed).
Toth v. Emirates and Nominet, [2-12] EWHC 517 (Ch) (Mr. Justice Mann) in which the Court concluded that there is “[n]o room for parallel (or consecutive) court proceedings [for Nominet arbitrated .uk disutes]” (53).
Super-Krete Int’l v. Sadleir, 712 F.Supp.2d 1023 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (Complainant in Super-Krete International, Inc. v. Concrete Solutions, Inc., D2008-1333 (WIPO October 14, 2008) (Court granted plaintiff preliminary injunction to prevent defendant’s sale or transfer of the domain before the court decided the merits of plaintiff’s claims).
Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293 (2nd Circ. 2002) (“[T]the ACPA’s basic in rem jurisdictional grant, contained in subsection (d)(2)(A), contemplates exclusively a judicial district within which the registrar or other domain-name authority is located. A plaintiff must initiate an in rem action by filing a complaint in that judicial district and no other.
The Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F.Supp.2d 860 (E.D. Virginia 2000) (In rem jurisdiction).
© 2019 Legal Corner Press, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.