Thread: Pennsylvania law firm sues domain company

Seems like a clear case of cybersquatting. The law firm of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn owns a service mark for its name. They are suing the Canadian company Domain Discreet over the domain names HouriganKlugerQuinn.com and HouriganKlugerQuinn.net. These two domains are currently parked and display law firm ads.

http://www.timesleader.com/business/...9-25-2008.html

I am glad to see that people are actually taking action on these kinds of things now. I do think that their monetary consumption demands are a little high, but I do think that the domains should be shut-down or purchased by the company that owns the similar trademarks.

I don't think that the company was right in suing the registrar of the domains at all. I think that it should be fine as they registrant registered the domain before the company, and I think that the company should get nothing other than a possible offer to purchase the domains if they wish to do so.

Originally Posted by Biiome

I don't think that the company was right in suing the registrar of the domains at all. I think that it should be fine as they registrant registered the domain before the company, and I think that the company should get nothing other than a possible offer to purchase the domains if they wish to do so.

I don't agree that the only recourse for the law firm should have been a possible offer to purchase the domain. For example, what would be the point in registering a trademark if it offers you no protection? Also, there would be a floodgate of people demanding money from companies in exchange for trademarked domains.

But that's just my two pennies worth...

Pennsylvania?s legal system retains peculiar ties to British colonialism that are relevant to both India and the U.S.

General the Marquess Cornwallis, the last major British military leader in what is now known as the United States, served two terms as governor general of India after his surrender in 1871 to a combined American-French force at the Siege of Yorktown.

In India he is known for instituting the permanent settlement and corresponding changes in the legal system. In the U.S. federal legal system, colonial remnants of British rule are strongest in the former proprietary colony of Pennsylvania.

In a proprietary colony, like a satrapy, the ruler can delegate sovereign authority to private parties to exercise on behalf of the ruler. This can result in the private party providing over-arching or erroneous interpretations of government policies.

In Pennsylvania, I worked for a municipality that brought suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a case that questioned the government?s granting of a land patent to a private party. The private party represented the sovereign in the case, which was dismissed after the municipality was deemed to lack legal standing to even bring a case that challenged the sovereign?s rights to grant permissions for the use of land and waters in the Commonwealth.

In India, although Ambedkar changed the constitution, he did not change enough of the old colonial laws in India. Nor were land reforms undertaken broadly enough to reverse the legacy of Cornwallis.

Colonialism retains strange and deep-seated roots in both countries.

Legal scholars are needed who can make a proper analysis of the process of decolonization, with the results available in a format that can be applied to help push the process forward.

Very interesting DomainWalla - thanks!

In contrast to the Pennsylvania case mentioned above, the 65-lawyer firm of Gable Gotwals recently lost their fight to win the domain name GableGotwals.com.

The main difference between the two cases is that Gable Gotwals did not file a trademark application for their firm name. The fact that Gable Gotwals used the firm name on stationery and marketing materials was not enough to merit the transfer of the domain.

http://blog.larrybodine.com/2008/10/...-its-own-name/

The complainant could just have done a lousy job at preparing their materials.

Interesting read thanks! I do agree with the Judge's decision, and it's good to see that the law is on the side of companies and registrants, and not the people trying to take traffic away from companies or use their names to make money.