Domain owner sues pool equipment company to block transfer after unfavorable WIPO ruling.
Earlier this month we wrote about a WIPO panel awarding the domain name Hayward.com to a pool company called Hayward Industries, even though Hayward.com is the name of a city in California and the domain didn’t show any links related to pool equipment.
Now the owner of the domain, WebQuest, has filed a complaint (pdf) in federal court against Hayward Industries in order to keep the domain name. The suit requests the court find declaratory judgment that WebQuest is the rightful registrant of the domain name and to block the transfer to the pool company, and requests attorneys fees.
In the lawsuit, WebQuest claims:
In the UDRP proceeding underlying this action, WIPO panelists found that WebQuest was a bad faith actor based on a combination of fabricated evidence, tortured logic, and a speculative and unsubstantiated domain name valuation. It is shocking and appalling that WIPO panelists, without any expertise in domain name valuation, would strip a domain owner of a six figure asset because they deemed its auction reserve to be
too high.
WebQuest repeats its allegation that, in order to show competing links on the domain name, Hayward Industries merely used the search box on Hayward.com to search for competitive terms.
(Hat tip George Kirikos.)
Steve M says
Good for him; though unfortunate that a lawsuit has to be filed in order to right this WIPO wrong.
I would have stated, “… speculative, unsubstantiated, and irrelevant …”
Though rarely awarded, may his victory include his attorney fees as well.
dfgdfg says
Also someone should sue these corrupted panelists, strip them of their home, car, wife and they would end up in a trailer where they belong
NameDev says
Hmmm.. Why would Webquest register wwwHayward.com, owned by a Georgia based IT company, in 2004 before they even bought the Hayward.com domain in 2006? Cybersquatting the IT company’s traffic perhaps?
Still, I hope they win the suit. Definitely a very stupid WIPO decision.
Jade says
Get ’em !
WQ says
How does this make any sense NameDev…
“Why would Webquest register wwwHayward.com, owned by a Georgia based IT company”
How can a domain be registered if its owned by someone else?
UDRPtalk says
NameDev – How do you assume it was showing IT related content?
Maybe he was planning for the future when he would purchase Hayward.com which he ultimately did!
NameDev says
@WQ (edit)
Why would Webquest register wwwHayward.com, (when Hayward.com was) owned by a Georgia based IT company in 2004 before they even bought the Hayward.com domain (from the IT company) in 2006?
See the pdf complaint at the bottom of page 5. He registered the typo of another company’s domain 2 years before eventually buying the non-typo. Why?
Adam says
Get ’em Chad.
WQ says
There’s a very good reason for that and it may come out in trial.
No big conspiracy here.
But even without this specific reason, Hayward is a generic term and owning a typo of it is not squatting on another companies domain.
Was wwwhayward.com serving up IT related links?
If so, maybe you would have an argument there.
NameDev says
I’m on your side. But, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you on this. wwwHayward.com is obviously a typo on Hayward.com. And at the time, Hayward was an IT company, not a Hayward, CA site. I hope this doesn’t hurt your case. I doubt if it will. Good luck.
WQ says
>>>And at the time, Hayward was an IT company, not a Hayward, CA site.<<<
Hayward, at that time, was also a city name.
An IT company does not own the right to that term alone.
UDRPtalk says
NameDev – You are being stubborn here. Come back to us with proof that the content was IT related.
And even if you do, just remember that he ended up buying the domain from the IT company which means that they didn’t have an issue with it.
Think about it…
Snoopy says
Nothing wrong with owning the www version of a generic term, (or a typo of a generic term).
UDRPtalk says
Snnopy – Yes there would be a problem if it were say wwwApple.com showing Computers. Or wwwHayward.com showing IT content while Hayward.com was owned by the IT company and that they didn’t approve it.
Snoopy says
UDRPtalk, there is issues in your examples because the usage infringes on trademark rights, that is different to suggesting that sticking www in front of a generic word is in itself an issue.
UDRPtalk says
Snoopy – What would be wrong if wwwHayward.com was showing geo/city content?
bernard says
Geodomainer have now to develop their domains, and become publishers.
The value of the developed website will be mostly related to its income. As you can see on flippa.com, those claiming their website for sale it “can become a huge earner in the right hands”.
Finally, domainer will grab themselves the domainer idea.
bernard says
Sorry, must read: As you can see on flippa.com, those claiming their website for sale “it can become a huge earner in the right hands” have no success.
Other point: you recently wrote this geodomainer sold domains to invest in real estate. This kind of news shouldn’t be shared publicly. Think about new investors willing to invest in domains, are they likely to come with fresh money to the domainer mob with this climate?
Louise says
This blog and these comments are better than the National Enquirer! I have found a new past time – “inquiring minds want to know” – thanx, Andrew & commenters!
Snoopy says
“What would be wrong if wwwHayward.com was showing geo/city content?”
There is no issue with that.
UDRPtalk says
Snoopy – So then where’s the issue with those examples?
Snoopy says
UDRPtalk, I think there is some confusion here, when I said your examples had obvious issues in terms of usage, I am saying that that the usage element of your example is the root of problem, not that the domains themselves are the problem. You can find examples of how lots of generic names could be be used in an infringing way with “what if” scenarios, but it comes back to usage. www names (on generic terms) in themself aren’t the problem.
Marc J. Randazza says
While the complaint contains a little unnecessary melodrama, I think it is well written and well considered.
I’ve seen dipshit lawyers who fancy themselves “domain lawyers” file shotgun pleadings with no regard to whether the claims have any chance of success. Lewis & Hand doesn’t ever seem to do that. Kudos.