Yoga apparel company sues to get ALO.com - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
Plan B failed so Plan C
Alo Yoga Sues To Get Alo.com After Losing UDRP (1 Viewing)
- Topic Starter silentg
- Start date
- Replies: Replies 11
- Views: Views 87
Yoga apparel company sues to get ALO.com - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
Plan B failed so Plan C
Plan D.... Gonna have to pay waaaaaay more to pay legal for current owner.
davidm
BusinessRegistration.ca
Screenshots in the complaint seem to indicate that PPC ads appear on ALO .com, but I just see "The site is under construction" in Korean and "
This name is not for sale
"
on the landing page.
Did the lawyers lie in their complaint or is something else going on here?
This name is not for sale
on the landing page.
Did the lawyers lie in their complaint or is something else going on here?
Archive shows parked page
davidm
BusinessRegistration.ca
Do you know who the current owner is? Can they sustain litigation?
rlm
Bonfire.ca
I have no problem with a trademark holder legitimately enforcing their trademarks. Obviously they just shouldn't be allowed to use a dispute as a first attack and hoping to get lucky. The penalties for an RDNH decision should be much more severe, including forfeiting the right to file another UDRP for the same domain name ever again.
But, if the complainant has a trademark, and gave trademark notices to the current owner asking to take down infringing content or ads, and the owner was given sufficient time to respond and then refused to change or remove the infringing ads, THEN the complainant probably has a legit case, but is probably better suited for court rather than UDRP?
But, if the complainant has a trademark, and gave trademark notices to the current owner asking to take down infringing content or ads, and the owner was given sufficient time to respond and then refused to change or remove the infringing ads, THEN the complainant probably has a legit case, but is probably better suited for court rather than UDRP?
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Topics
- 63
- Posts
- 4,294
- Likes
- 2,383
Sure, and I've seen that TM tactic used before to force a lower price, but Alo is going for a cybersquatting verdict (using the idiotic "every renewal is a new registration" argument), which is more doomed to failure than the UDRP they got an RDNH on.
If Alo wanted to start a TM dispute as a negotiating tactic, sure, but as the registrant owned the domain well before Alo was a company, a cybersquatting case is guaranteed to be a non-starter. And from comments on Twitter et al, this lawyer doesn't seem to have the best reputation and may be leading Alo Yoga down the garden path.
rlm
Bonfire.ca
Yeah, that's why I suggested it was probably better suited to court rather than UDRP
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Topics
- 63
- Posts
- 4,294
- Likes
- 2,383
There are 3 basic options here: 1) a TM dispute seeking monetary damages (court), 2) a cybersquatting dispute asking for ownership of the domain (court), and 3) a UDRP (IPO panel).
See, there are 2 court options.
Option 1) is what you would assume would occur in this case, as 3) already failed with a RDNH verdict and 2) is a non-starter due to the registration date and court precedent, not to mention their idiotic and long-failed "each renewal is a new registration" primary argument.
As others have stated online, Alo Yoga cannot win a cybersquatting case based on past precedent, so this is either a bizarre negotiating tactic (option 1 is preferable as they have a chance to win and be awarded penalties) to lower the price or their lawyer is running them up the legal-fees tree.
rlm
Bonfire.ca
yes, this definitely seems like a stupid approach, but then again I don't know what the costs of court vs another UDRP are. As hinted at by 
@davidm they may be continuing with the legal extortion route by testing the owner's patience, time and ability to defend himself, in an attempt to settle for a lower price. Or it could be a non-UDRP-savvy lawyer foolishly thinking they know everything (which seems common among lawyers). Or it could be a scummy lawyer just squeezing every penny out of a naive client.
@davidm they may be continuing with the legal extortion route by testing the owner's patience, time and ability to defend himself, in an attempt to settle for a lower price. Or it could be a non-UDRP-savvy lawyer foolishly thinking they know everything (which seems common among lawyers). Or it could be a scummy lawyer just squeezing every penny out of a naive client.
davidm
BusinessRegistration.ca
The court case filing might be a threat to shake the tree to buy the domain for less than 7 figures.yes, this definitely seems like a stupid approach, but then again I don't know what the costs of court vs another UDRP are. As hinted at by
There's no current trademark infringement. This case was filed by David Weslow and his team of domain lawyers. They're very savvy about domain name law and file many cases every year.
The SCOTUS decision in Abitron v. Hetronic could potentially be helpful in supporting a defense that the Korean domain name owner has not used or infringed a trademark in the US. The Abitron decision suggests that courts should look closely at where the actual infringing use in commerce occurred, rather than just considering effects in the US. This could potentially help a foreign domain owner argue against US jurisdiction since their prior activities were not focused on the US.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Topics
- 63
- Posts
- 4,294
- Likes
- 2,383
As hinted at by
Exactly, and I'm leaning towards a silver-tongued lawyer leading an egotistical CEO down the garden path, with the second option being the "legal extortion/torture" angle.
Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |