Verizon Changes Tactics: Files UDRP Complaints Instead of Lawsuits

Verizon is known to fiercely protect it’s trademarks, and they’ve done so using the US Court system in the past. In 2008 Verizon filed lawsuits against companies like Navigation Catalyst and OnlineNic citing the Lanham Act (cybersquatting ).

With its litigious reputation, I was surprised to see that the company opted to file UDRP disputes at the World Intellectual Property Organization, in lieu of filing lawsuits. As of the present time, Verizon has at least two UDRP complaints pending and a recent victory for domain names that include (among others):

verizoin.com
verizonswireless.com
verizonwieless.com
verizoon.com
verizopn.net
versizon.net
vewrizon.net
virazon.com
verion.com

Filing a lawsuit can be an expensive endeavor, and while federal law dictates that penalties up to $100k for each domain name may be given, the fact that respondents do not appear to be US-based may have been the rationale for using this mediation procedure rather than filing suit.

As mentioned above, Verizon won a $30+ million default judgment against OnlineNic, although it is unclear if they have been able to, or will be able to collect on this amount. Perhaps they’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not worth the time and/or effort to chase after cybersquatters in other countries. I really don’t know, but whatever the case is, Verizon remains on the hunt for potentially infringing domain names.

It is surprising to see Verizon filing UDRPs but it might make the most sense given the situation.

Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. Files UDRP for PPD.com I really hate seeing UDRP filings for three letter .com...
Verizon Gets VerizoniPhone.com Earlier this morning, TechCrunch reported that Apple was able to...
WebQuest Files Lawsuit Over Hayward.com A couple of weeks ago, Hayward.com was awarded to the...

Written by Elliot Silver on August 2, 2010
Posted in: Cybersquatting
Tags: acpa, lanham act, verizon

Comments (5)

BusinessWebsites.com

August 2nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Budget Cuts = UDRP

Michael Castello

August 2nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm

Verizon has been actively involved in the BC (Business Constituency) within ICANN and have had influence in the UDRP and URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension System).

Maybe they feel they now have a voice within the domain name process.

http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm

Cybersquatting Cases » Blog Archive » After Landmark Victories in the US Courts, Verizon Changes Tactics to Pursue Cybersquatters Through UDRP Arbitration Disputes

August 3rd, 2010 at 3:51 pm

[...] Verizon Changes Tactics: Files UDRP Complaints Instead of Lawsuits Category: Cybersquatting Cases | Comment (RSS) | Trackback [...]

Bret Moore

August 3rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm

Just a point of clarification: the UDRP is an arbitration process, not a mediation. And I think you are absolutely right, given the expense of going to court, and the likelihood that they’ll never be able to really collect a judgment from the defendant to make it worthwhile, UDRPs make a lot more sense, particularly for the very obvious typosquatting that you highlight above.

Verizon UDRPs « Trademarks « UDRP Attorney – Domain Name Dispute Lawyer & Internet Legal Services

August 3rd, 2010 at 8:42 pm

[...] This article highlights some very important points about Verizon’s recent UDRP spree. The point the author makes is a great one, and it deserves to be repeated: litigation is expensive, and even if you are awarded a large judgment against a cybersquatter, collecting on that judgment is not guaranteed (and might even be impossible – “You can’t get blood from a turnip” as they say in law school). This is why UDRPs are so attractive for trademark owners – they are cost effective. And fast! [...]