LH.com lost due to reverse hijacking

**Wot** · 05-01-2008, 01:10 AM

http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

**incka** · 05-01-2008, 01:44 AM

Good on FMA. I hope they win the case and Lufthansa are ordered to pay damages to FMA's reputation.

**Ehsan** · 05-01-2008, 02:12 AM

Lets see how it goes ..... hope they win it back

**socalboy** · 05-01-2008, 03:38 AM

This just keeps getting better and better

I'd like to read the Answer from Lufthansa. The first question which jumps into my mind is why they're not stuck with the arbitration decision, which is normally binding with extremely limited rights of appeal.

That may be revealed in the Answer, which could be preceded by a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. If this case survives that hurdle, next question is how determined Lufthansa is. Will they settle, or go to trial? If this case goes the length, I would imagine it will be reported, and become a leading authority on the law of domains.

Should it go forward, it looks like it's going to be a fun case. FMA admitted they are "the owner of approximately 100,000 domain names." I sure would not have put that in there! McDermott is just licking their chops at this point to do discovery. They're going to ask everything they can about all of them. It's going to take elequa hundreds of hours and cost many thousands of dollars just to comply with the discovery requests.

And then there are the Nazi references....

SoCalBoy

**xblackhat** · 05-01-2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by socalboy

MalMar2, I will look at that.

If Kenyon did something wrong, then FMA (elequa/Ahmed) has a cause of action against Kenyon for malpractice.

But from the names of the firms, I think it was competently briefed.

The problem is with the adjudicators, and how they are appointed.

SoCalBoy

He's Thunayan not Ahmed

**Acro** · 05-01-2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by socalboy

It's going to take elequa thousands of hours

Since Elequa sleeps very little, he has the advantage.

**NameCharger** · 05-01-2008, 02:59 PM

Out of the first 10 Google results for "LH", 4 are for Luteinizing Hormone, 2 are for a lab corp., only 1 is for Lufthansa.

Other "LH" uses: Wiki link

**draggar** · 05-01-2008, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by NameCharger

Out of the first 10 Google results for "LH", 4 are for Luteinizing Hormone, 2 are for a lab corp., only 1 is for Lufthansa.

Other "LH" uses: Wiki link

So then Lab Corp can sue Lufthansa for the domain, after they get it then Luteinizing Hormone sues Lab Corp for it, and it is just a vicious cycle where the only winnder is WIPO with all of the fees.

**NameCharger** · 05-01-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by draggar

So then Lab Corp can sue Lufthansa for the domain, after they get it then Luteinizing Hormone sues Lab Corp for it, and it is just a vicious cycle where the only winnder is WIPO with all of the fees.

Luteinizing Hormone is a sex hormone found in humans which makes women ovulate and men produce testosterone, so the individual with the highest concentration of LH in their bloodstream should be awarded LH.com

/*obvious satire regarding of the absurdity of this LH mess

**socalboy** · 05-01-2008, 06:42 PM

He's Thunayan not Ahmed

My apologies elequa. I pulled that from the wrong thread. I stand corrected.

**seer** · 05-01-2008, 10:09 PM

People forget sometimes if they want to get their domain back
You have 10 days to file a challenge in a court if they award the complainant:

If the independent Panel appointed by the WIPO Center finds that the Complainant has proved that the domain name at issue has been unlawfully registered and used, the Panel will issue an order to transfer the domain name concerned to the Complainant. No damages or costs are awarded under the UDRP procedure. Following the ruling, the Respondent has 10 days in which to file court proceedings challenging the decision, in an appropriate jurisdiction. Unless the Respondent files such a challenge (which happens rarely in practice), the Registrar of the domain name concerned will then transfer the name to the Complainant in compliance with the decision.

**socalboy** · 05-01-2008, 11:02 PM

Thanks, that answers how they got into federal court.

If this thing isn't dismissed and doesn't settle, a lot of people are going to have a lot at stake on how this court decides.

**malmar2** · 05-02-2008, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by socalboy

Thanks, that answers how they got into federal court.

In this case they went to court the moment they heard about the udrp - without waiting for a result.

**socalboy** · 05-02-2008, 04:51 AM

This is a great thread, with the potential of getting even better. Mods, how do we put stars on this one?

People are posting here who almost never post on these kinds of threads. And for good reason, it's an important issue. Nice to hear from everyone

SoCalBoy

**tristanperry** · 05-02-2008, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by socalboy

This is a great thread, with the potential of getting even better. Mods, how do we put stars on this one?

SoCalBoy

Scroll up - there's a "Rating:" button towards the top

**socalboy** · 05-02-2008, 08:59 AM

Hello Elequa,

I see you've been watching this thread like a hawk. And there are some spectacular hawks in Arabia

As I'm sure you're already aware, many are interested to see what happens here. A lot is riding on this case, not just for you, but for the whole domaining industry.

Best wishes,

Eric

**Mr. Deleted** · 05-03-2008, 11:22 AM

all 1 2 and 3 char domains should be immune from UDRP.

**HarveyJ** · 05-04-2008, 06:47 PM

Should be, but won't be... When big money is involved, current rules get conveniently ignored most of the time, and new ones don't get formed...

**accent** · 05-04-2008, 08:01 PM

I am no lawyer, and perhaps there is more than I am seeing here, but I really do not understand the direction Elequa's attorneys are taking.

Simply put, as I read it, they are saying that since Lufthansa claimed in their USA trademark applications for "LH" and for "Lufthansa" (and in the UDRP) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926, and since the 1926 founded company ended in 1945 and that the present Lufthansa was founded in 1953, that this misstatement is enough to void BOTH trademarks and thus also the UDRP.

Nothing at all about the many, many other uses of "LH". Nothing about no intentionally misleading use of LH.com. Nothing about "bad faith" beyond a bare denial. No details and only one example without explanation of Lufthansa's alleged pattern of "falsely and fraudulently claiming trademark rights it does not own"

And a gratuitous attack on the "Lufthansa" trademark, which has no bearing on LH.com and further dilutes whatever little strength this case has.

A "LH" trademark can be held by a number of different companies if used for different products. There is no need to kill the trademarks to protect LH.com.

My (layman's) guess is that the judge will rule that the controversy between Lufthansa being founded in 1926 or in 1953 is not relevant to the granting of the trademark in 1993, leaving Elequa nowhere to stand.

I really would like to see some of our resident attorneys weigh in on this. On one side, by limiting the case to an attempt to void Lufthansa's trademarks the court will not reach the question of the generic nature of short domains, so if Elequa loses this will not matter much in legal precedent. But it would affirm the UDRP and may cause more anti-domainer decisions from that body.

**touchring** · 05-04-2008, 10:10 PM

does anyone knows if airline or travel related ads are displayed on lh.com or searches on the search engine displayed airline or travel related ads?

i think it's the ppc that got the name into trouble.