Can Tort Theory Enable Plaintiff to Recover UDRP Filing Fees?
Here’s a novel legal theory:
Cybersquatter registers a domain name that infringes the trademark owned by Owner. Owner prevails in a UDRP arbitration and the panel transfers the domain name to Owner. Owner is as whole as the UDRP can make it. But Owner is out the (not insubstantial) amount it paid to file the complaint. Seeking to be made financially whole, Owner sues Cybersquatter in small claims court to recover its fee. But for Cybersquatter’s bad conduct, Owner argues, it never would have had to spend that money.
How’s the court rule?
Michael Atkins
3 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
The Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance brought a successful UDRP complaint against Brent Hanson of the Seattle area. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) found Hanson had acted in bad faith, had no bona fide right to the use of the name, and the domain names USAEYES.BIZ, USAEYES.INFO, and USAEYES.NET were confusingly similar to the organization's trademark USAEYES and domain USAEYES.ORG in case number FA0712001118174.
Brent Hanson then published the same website at USAEYES.US, which was subsequently transferred to CRSQA pursuant to NAF #FA0812001237910.
It appears that it is Mr. Hanson's intention to continue to violate CRSQA's trademark with a continuous loop of $15 domain names that cost CRSQA $1500 plus legal fees to regain. CRSQA is a underfunded nonprofit patient advocacy organization that cannot easily afford this cycle of costs.
To recoup its UDRP costs and at the same time create a financial disincentive for Mr. Hanson to continue his misuse of domains, CRSQA has filed a small claims action in King County District Court Seattle Division, seeking the costs incurred by the UDRP claim. The case, 85-011924, and a nearly identical case brought against Brent Hanson by Cataract Free America, (King Court #85-13855, NAF #FA0810001230529), are before the court at this time.
Hanson has unsuccessfully attempted several pre-trial motions to have the case dismissed, however a final decision has not been rendered by the court.
Read the documents at http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/brent_hanson/85-011924/