Archive for the ‘Internet Law’ Category

I KNOW What YOU Did and I KNOW Where YOU Are!

Posted on April 16th, 2013 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

Most know that I am an angel investor and admitted domain name addict; however most do not know that I am also an attorney specializing in Digital Media law, Internet law and Corporate law with New York’s leading law firm Ruskin Moscou Faltischek.

With the tragic events in Boston yesterday, the Internet lawyer inside me wanted to look for the Cybersquatters (a/k/a scum) that take advantage of a national tragedy by registering related domain names ONLY in an effort to PROFIT from these horrific events. While I was hoping to find nothing, that is SELDOM the case…..
registered on 4/15/13 by
Mr. Myers – imdone97(at)
Queen Anne, MD 21657

At the time of this post, this domain name currently brings up a business that sells gift cards – WTF??
registered on 4/15/13 by
Phillip Barton – philzinvesting(at)
Rocky Mount, NC 27804

This person appears to be a cybersquatter and is undeniably trying to sell this domain name as it says on the website “Premium Key-Word Rich Domains For Sale! Would you this Domain? Please email me to negotiate a transfer….”

NOTE – this makes me sick!!!
registered on 4/15/13 and while there is a “private registration” (for $9 extra per year) so we cannot see who registered this domain name….the site is a “memorial site” (if you can say that) and states:

“DO NOT: Donate to any funds or Facebook groups that popped up 10 mins after the event occurred. The Red Cross is your best bet if you’re planning on contributing to the relief effort.
Join the discussion at
for info regarding this domain or if you have a legitimate, charitable use for it, contact”
registered on 4/15/13 and while there is a “private registration” (for $9 extra per year) the site does redirect to the American Red Cross site, specifically for the Boston Marathon
registered on 4/15/13 but the Cybersquatter did a “private registration” (for $9 extra) so we cannot see what low life registered this….the website is “parked” which essentially means they are trying to make money from the website/domain name by people clicking on links within the site.

There are more domain names and I will update this post with my findings…..

To all you Cybersquatters listed above, I hereby DEMAND that you forward these domains to a real 501(c)3 non-profit such as American Red Cross, etc.

Oh, besides being an attorney in New York, I am ALSO admitted to practice law in the Common Wealth of Massachusetts so be prepared!!


Pinterest Files Legal Rights Objection to Amazon’s .pin Domain Application

Posted on March 25th, 2013 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

It has been reported that Pinterest has filed a legal rights objection against over its application to run the .pin top level domain.

As with Amazon’s other top level domain applications, it plans to operate .pin as a closed registry and will not offer second level domain names to consumers and businesses.

While you can understand what Amazon would do with other domain names it has applied for, such as .book or .app, it’s not that clear to to most thus far what .pin has to do with Amazon’s business.

Other legal rights objections published today include .cam, .limited, .axis, .tube, and .bio. – see the entire list here


Man Has Made First Amendment Challenge in Domain Name Dispute

Posted on November 7th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

LegalNewsline is reporting that The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has sent back to district court a Texas attorney’s constitutional challenge to the State of Texas’ attempt to deny him use of his website’s domain name.

John Gibson maintains a website under the domain name “” In February 2011, Gibson received a cease and desist letter from the Texas Department of Insurance, Department of Workers Compensation, which alleged that his use of the words “Texas” and “Workers’ Comp” in the domain name of his website violated Sec. 419.002 of the Texas Labor Code.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and affirmed the dismissal of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. However, it found some merit in Gibson’s First Amendment challenge.

“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment… However, the Constitution… accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression,” wrote Judge Edith Brown Clement in the Fifth Circuit’s “as-applied” analysis.

Gibson argued that his website did more than just propose a commercial transaction and thus should have more than the protection afforded commercial speech, and the Court agreed that it might. But, the Court said, “the domain name may nevertheless be considered commercial speech if“ it is an advertisement of some form, it refers to a specific product, and the speaker has an economic motivation for the speech.”

Because the issue of whether a domain name is commercial speech or “a more vigorously protected form of speech” is a new issue, the Court wrote, “This is an issue we need not reach or decide in this appeal without a record of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances involving the website’s domain name.”

You can read the entire article here


Kate Spade files UDRP Complainst Against Owners of &

Posted on September 27th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

Just caught a headline on Domain Name Wire that Kate Spade has filed UDRP complaints against the owners of and

According to Domain Name Wire, Kate Spade has filed UDRP complaints before — but these are the first two since 2008.

Both top level domain names offered sunrise periods during which the company could have acquired (or blocked, in the case of .xxx) the domains for a fraction of the cost of a UDRP filing.

The company was successful in its previous four UDRP cases filed between 2002 and 2008.

You can see the recent Case Activity here


Court Orders Search Engines and Social Sites to De-Index Site

Posted on May 1st, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

According to SFGate, Hermes International SCA, maker of Birkin handbags and silk scarves, won a judgment that includes $100 million in damages against 34 websites that sold fake copies of its luxury goods.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York ruled the sites, which didn’t defend themselves in court, sold items that infringed upon at least nine Hermes products including Birkin and Kelly handbags, wallets, watches, belts and jewelry.

Cote said the websites, with names such as HermesBags-, and HermesOutletStore.Com, were liable for federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement. They had also disregarded her previous temporary orders restraining them from selling counterfeit Hermes items, Cote said.

The court also ordered that any money held by PayPal Inc. to be given to Hermes and ordered Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and merchant account providers, as well as third-party processors and search engines including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp.’s Bing and Yahoo! Inc., to immediately stop providing services to the defendants or links to their sites.

The judge also directed social media companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to “de-index” and remove from any search pages links to the infringing defendants.

The order to the search engines and to the social networking companies to de-index the sites is an interesting one.


NY Lawyers Approved for Deal of the Day Marketing

Posted on April 17th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

A dear attorney friend shared an article with me today that I found quite interesting given our recent success in selling products with daily deal sites….

Lawyers (of which I am one) who provide services to small businesses and individuals are particularly attracted to Internet applications that enable them to target potential clients before the client walks in the firm’s door.

Recently, the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics issued an opinion in which it explored whether lawyers can market their services by using a deal of the day or a group coupon website. The committee’s opinion generally supported the use of these websites, offering attorneys yet another avenue to attract clients and develop new business, albeit with caveats and requirement as to how attorneys must conduct themselves in connection with these offerings under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Based upon the facts, the committee opined as to whether an attorney may market legal services by participating in a “daily deal” or “group coupon” website. In its opinion, the committee pointed out that the use of a daily deal or group coupon website by a lawyer as a means of marketing legal services raises a number of issues:

• Whether the arrangement is an improper payment for a referral;

• Whether the amount received by a lawyer could, under certain circumstances, result in a prohibited excessive fee;

• Whether statements made by or on behalf of a lawyer are false or misleading or otherwise violate rules regarding lawyer advertising; and

• Whether the logistical arrangement of payment in advance for a legal service, before a lawyer has had the opportunity to check for conflicts or determine whether the lawyer is competent to perform the service and whether the client needs the service, constitutes a premature and improper formation of a lawyer-client relationship.

You can read the entire article here


Google has filed a UDRP against a 21 year old domain name

Posted on April 16th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

Domain Name Wire has reported today that Google has filed a UDRP against a 21 year old domain name:, which of course existed before Google created Gmail in 2004

Click here to read more about the UDRP that Google has filed

Ikea scores more UDRP success

Posted on March 7th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

Looks like Ikea is successful again with another UDRP action….this time for

From the decision:

“In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 9, 2004.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5 (a), the due date for the Response was November 29, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on December 1, 2004, the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default to the Respondent notifying him that he had failed to comply with the above-mentioned deadline to submit his Response.

The Center appointed Mayer Gabay as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. ”

Read the entire decision here


Grocery chain wins first .XXX UDRP case

Posted on February 9th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

According to Domain Name Wire, HEB Grocery Company, headquartered in San Antonio, is the first complainant to win a uniform domain name dispute resolution (UDRP) case for a .xxx domain name (

Atlanta resident Eric Gonzales registered the domain name after he claims to have contacted the grocery chain to see if they were going to register it.

Gonzales’ approach is certainly interesting. Here’s how the World Intellectual Property Forum panel summed it up:

Respondent is an individual, located in the U.S. state of Georgia, who indicates that he was doing “extensive research for a TV news report on businesses that have not registered .XXX domains with possible variations close to their names.” Respondent states that he contacted several businesses that bought .XXX domains after he brought the matter to their attention but that Complainant was not one of them so he bought the disputed domain because of Complainant’s failure to exhibit a proactive approach. Respondent states that he was later contacted by counsel for Complainant “DEMANDING” he relinquish control over the disputed domain but that Complainant never asked. Respondent states “Everything would have been avoided if they would have asked.”, because then he “would have gladly GIVEN” them the domain. Respondent noted several policies involving the .XXX gTLD which cause him to question the general availability of domain sites if they are allowed to be taken away by companies that fail to block the initial purchase. Respondent stated that he could have avoided dealing with this legal issue and consulting legal advice if Complainant had taken steps to block his purchase.

Another strike against Gonzales: he admitted he’s not part of the sponsored community (adult sites).


Twitter Gets Typo of its Domain Name

Posted on January 26th, 2012 by AndrewHazenCom  |  No Comments »

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has awarded Twitter the domain name in a uniform domain name dispute resolution policy (UDRP) proceeding. was originally registered before Twitter’s “first use in commerce” date on its trademark for “Twitter”. Although Twitter says it actually started the service prior to this first use date, it was a moot point in this case because the current owner purchased the domain after the first use date.

The owner of the domain, identified as 21562719 Ont Ltd a/k/a Galt Networks Inc., did not respond to Twitter’s complaint. The registrant acquired the domain after Twitter purchased the domain name.

You can read the entire WIPO decision here