Buyer of hijacked RL.com domain name has spent dearly on legal bills.
In light of recent domain thefts, you might ask yourself what can happen if you happen to buy a stolen domain name. Look no further than the case of John Laxton, who bought the domain name RL.com for $15,000 in 2005.
RL.com was originally registered by Dale Mayberry in 1995. He also owned the domain name mat.net, and used a mat.net email address as the registered contact for both RL.com and Mat.net. The domain name mat.net expired, letting another party register it and use it to get access to the RL.com domain name in a fashion similar to what recently happened with PRFirm.com.
Mayberry later found out what happened, and demanded that Laxton return the domain name he had purchased. By the time this happened, Laxton had already incurred significant legal expenses fighting off an attack under UDRP by Ralph Lauren for the domain name.
In October 2007, Mayberry filed a second amended complaint against Laxton and others involved with the domain name. A district court agreed on two of the counts, and ordered the domain name returned to Mayberry. Laxton appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed in part that the district court erred (pdf).
One of Mayberry’s lawyers on the case is Charles Carreon, who himself was involved in the high profile case of the theft of Sex.com. The Ninth Circuit court in this decision was also involved in the sex.com case.
So the saga continues. RL.com is currently owned by well-known domainer Richard Lau but held in care of lawyer Carreon’s law firm.
(Hat tip Bret Fausett)
Ace says
IANAL, but this one complicated case.
Acro says
Again I have to ask, why the focus on LL .com domains? Is it because their de facto value is high? There are records of domain thefts for years; from LLL .com’s to generics to brands to CVCV .com’s. The sudden interest seems to be related to a few publicized cases that involved parties outside of the domain community. You’d be surprised by the sheer number of domains that were stolen, sold and resold on domain forums and conferences since 2004, some of which are now owned by very reputable domainers.
cvbcvbcvb says
I wonder if they lost the UDRP if the original owner could reverse it because he could not defend himself. If it could not be reversed, thieves could simply legalize big-ticket stolen domains via cheap UDRP proceeding.
Louise says
It is music to my ears:
California law recognizes a property interest in domain names. As we explained in Kremen v. Cohen, domain names are intangible property subject to conversion claims. 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). To this end, “courts generally hold that domain names are subject to the same laws as other types of intangible property.”
– quote from opinion, HTML version
The eNom Registration Agreement states:
You acknowledge that domain name registration is a service, domain name registrations do not exist independently from services provided pursuant to this or a similar registration agreement with a registrar, domain name registration services do not create a property interest and you have no such property interest in any domain name(s) which you may register with us.
so the registrars want to erase the property interest of the domain registrant, but CA enforces it, and even says:
California seeks to protect the intangible property rights of the owners of domain names, recognizing that control of a domain name “provide[s] a sense of identity and an exclusive vehicle to market products and ideas.” See Patrick T. Clendenen et al., Domain Names as Property, in 1 Internet Law and Practice § 17:1, at 17-3 (2009). Many domain name registrants “invest substantial time and money to develop and promote websites that depend on their domain names. Ensuring that they reap the benefits of their investments reduces uncertainty and thus encourages investment in the first place, promoting the growth of the Internet overall.” Kremen, 337 F.3d at 1030.
Thank you thank you thank you!
Richard says
@Louise — yes, there are substantial elements to this case that reach far beyond this one domain, that I wanted to get graved into the legal system. The sex.com case predated the many changes that Registrars had put into their terms. So our case re-affirms that domains are property in Califonia.
In short — you are welcome.