Lorenzo International Limited Takes Aim at Tucows’ Lorenzo.com

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s website, it appears that Lorenzo International Limited has filed a UDRP for the generic, first-name domain name, Lorenzo.com, which is owned and operated by Tucows.

From the outset and without any specific information related to this case, I believee Lorenzo International Limited will have a difficult time proving it’s case. At the present time, Lorenzo.com is being used by Tucows as a vanity email service, and the domain name appears to be a part of the company’s NetIdentity suite of first and last name domain names. In fact, it wasregistered to NetIdentity prior to Tucows’ acquisition.

Tucows has already successfully defended a number of similar cases, including UDRP filings for:

Tucows has lost a few similar UDRP filings, perhaps giving hope to Lorenzo International Limited. In the Aubert.com filing, there was a dissenting opinion. The Ricard.com UDRP and the Weidner.com UDRP were lost as well. The Dunlap.com UDRP was terminated due to a lawsuit filed in Ontario.

In the Walls.com UDRP linked above, the company successfully defending its ownership while citing its use of the domain name in question, which to me, also seems to be applicable for Lorenzo.com:

“Since 1996, NetIdentity had been providing personalized e-mail blogging and web-hosting services through a collection of personal surname addresses. NetIdentity had acquired thousands of surname domain names such as <smith.net> and including the disputed domain name <walls.com>. Customers with hosted websites with NetIdentity are given third level domain names corresponding to their own first name and surname, e.g. <bill.smith.net>. Netidentity had this secured over 70% of US surnames as domain names.”

Considering the similar circumstances between the Lorenzo.com domain name and the Walls.com domain name, I don’t see why the company shouldn’t retain the rights to Lorenzo.com.

In my opinion, it’s upsetting that a company can so easily try and claim rights to a generic domain name that is being used by another company for its business operations. Of course Tucows can easily afford the legal fees in such an instance, but it’s upsetting to me that Tucows needs to defend this domain name.

Comments (17)

Leonard Britt

January 6th, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Note Lorenzo is also a first name. Brian’s DomainStore.tv email had a listing for Lorenzo.tv which caught my eye because one of my wife’s brothers names is Lorenzo.

Gnanes

January 6th, 2011 at 12:37 pm

new trend starting from 2011. Going after developed website / established business domains

andrew

January 6th, 2011 at 12:47 pm

ten bucks says Tucows sues rather than going through the UDRP. 100 bucks says that if they do go through the UDRP and Tucows loses, Tucows sues.

The Big Cheese

January 6th, 2011 at 1:12 pm

According to Alexa.com, Cheeseburger.TV gets WAY more traffic than Lorenzo.com, and we haven’t even launched the site yet. Hope we don’t get UDRP’d…

- TBC

Elliot

January 6th, 2011 at 1:13 pm

@ TBC

I think you’re in the clear.

Rich

January 6th, 2011 at 1:14 pm

I read the actual case determination for similar RICARD case and the facts that led up to the case. There is a key issue there concerning Tucows use of the domain name as a landing page for certain types of ads that could be construed as trademark infringement.

The case was very complicated and highlights the fragility of the current system and the many nuances associated with potential online trademark infringement. This however, is not simply a domain name issue, since similar issues have always existed in the brick-and-mortar world.

Elliot

January 6th, 2011 at 1:16 pm

@ Rich

I don’t see any advertising on Lorenzo.com.

Frank Michlick

January 6th, 2011 at 1:18 pm

@Andrew: Since the UDRP has been filed Tucows will have to file as response if they don’t want to lose the domain. As far as I know suing is an option should they lose the UDRP.

Elliot

January 6th, 2011 at 1:21 pm

@ Frank

There was a suit filed in response to the Dunlop.com UDRP and the UDRP was terminated pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

Frank Michlick

January 6th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

@Elliot, thanks, I didn’t know that. I guess it just comes down to timing

Rich

January 6th, 2011 at 1:40 pm

@Elliot

The ads were probably removed but they probably did exist based upon the facts presented in the determination.

reversehighjackingparasites

January 6th, 2011 at 2:24 pm

With no reverse highjacking penalties these frivolous domain attacks with only continue and increase. The udrp system is a joke with everyone making money except the rightful generic domain owners. They just get the cost of defending this nonsense.
Just because tucows can “afford” the cost doesn’t make it right. If for some reason they had a ppc feed listing questionable links remove the links. One strike, stop doing it, two strikes then maybe a case may be claimed. Otherwise the claimant should go suck dirt.
peace.

enoss

January 7th, 2011 at 7:15 am

some additional facts. each of aubert, ricard and weidner were also the subject of lawsuits in ontario. each case was settled.

in each case the settlement acknowledges that each party has their respective rights and that we did not act in bad faith in the operation of our vanity email business.

this is just a cost of doing business for us and the fact that there are no penalties is indeed a problem.

also note “lorenzo” is a surname as well as a first name.

Elliot

January 7th, 2011 at 7:23 am

@ Elliot

Thank you for the additional information. I wish your company well in defending this domain name.

Priv

January 8th, 2011 at 11:45 am

Two scenarios: they called their corporate lawyer they were probably clueless on how UDRP and domains worked so they filed.

Or it could be a ploy to ‘force’ a sale, knowing that a lawsuit will proceed if they win a UDRP, assuming they looked at the Tucows history

elliot noss

January 8th, 2011 at 12:33 pm

I can pretty much assure you it is the first. read the filing .

our price does not change on the basis of litigation. in rare circumstances we do sell surnames and the price is very high. if someone is willing to pay that price they can do so without litigation.

Elliot

January 8th, 2011 at 1:57 pm

@ Elliot

I don’t believe the filing has been posted yet… just that a UDRP was filed.