Verizon goes after cybersquatters

The cellular provider famous for its “Can you hear my now?” adverts is making itself heard. This week Verizon filed a number of lawsuits against cybersquatters.

Some of the domains involved are varizon.com, vierzon.com, and virazon.com. These clearly infringe upon Verizon’s trademark.

The company is demanding $100,000 per domain in addition to other damages. This includes any profits earned from the names and legal fees. Verizon is also asking that the cybersquatters pay for corrective advertising to remedy “any consumer confusion or misperceptions” that resulted from the use of domains.

I have a feeling Verizon will win its case, but I doubt their damage requests will be fulfilled. It will be hard to prove that any loss of profits and consumer confusion occurred, and my guess is the individuals concerned are unlikely to have $100,000.

Photo | Flickr

Johnson & Johnson win shampoo domain case

American pharmaceutical and general consumables company Johnson & Johnson recently filed a dispute over nizoralshampoo.com, registered by Jorgenson Group of Companies. J&J claimed that the domain is similar to its trademarked Nizoral shampoo product. For its defense, Jorgenson had nothing to offer, opting not to respond when the case was brought before the National Arbitration Forum. As a result, Johnson & Johnson was granted the domain.

Unlike the Kraft domain dispute covered yesterday, this case is more clear-cut. Had the domain simply been nizoral.com J&J would have had a harder time proving its case, but since the product is known worldwide as a shampoo, the original registrant had barely a leg to stand on, hence the lack of a response in the case.

Source | Domain News

Kraft loses dispute over Oreo.nl

In a rare victory for the little guy, a domain arbitrator has ruled that Kraft has no right to Oreo.nl, which the company recently filed a dispute over.

J.C. van Winkel registered Oreo.nl in 2000. He uses the name for his personal email, but never set up a site with it. With the recent introduction of Oreo cookies to the Netherlands, however, Kraft decided it wanted the name, claiming that van Winkel’s use violated its trademark.

Though Kraft certainly has rights to the Oreo name, the arbitrator ruled that the corporation could not prove that van Winkel had no rights to the domain, either. In other words, both parties had a legitimate interest in Oreo.nl, but van Winkel was the early bird who got the worm.

This case is interesting because, unlike others in the past, the arbitrator ruled that email constitutes valid use of a domain. Just because a domain doesn’t have a site associated with it doesn’t mean the owner has no rights to it.

Source | Domain Name Wire

Photo | Flickr