Ask HN: Own .com for 7 years, a new company trademarked my name registered .NET
I have owned a .com for 7+ years, a new company who has only been around for <2 years registered the .net 2 years ago and now threaten for me to handover my .com or they will sue
I have received a cease and desist letter from a law firm via email.
They claim as they client registered a trademark two years ago for the name, I must handover my .com domain to them for free, otherwise they will sue me.
For them not to sue me, because they have now registered trademark (even though I had the .com domain and was using it 7+ years before them)
They state from their solicitor that I must do all the following (long letter they sent me but here is the title/headings):
1. Cessation of Use of the Mark.
2. Abandonment of Rights
3. Future Trademark Applications
4. Transfer of Domain Names
5. Acknowledgement of Ownership and No Challenge
6. Mutual Release
7. Covenant Not to Sue
8. No Outstanding or Known Future Claims/Causes of Action
9. Acknowledgment of Settlement
10. Confidentiality of Agreement
11. Non-Disparagement
12. Agreement is Legally Binding
13. Entire Agreement
14. New or Different Facts: No Effect
15. Interpretation
16. Governing Law and Submission to Jurisdiction
17. Equitable Relief
18. Reliance on Own Counsel
19. Counterparts
20. Authority to Execute Agreement
"[Company Name] further demands that you provide, by no later than the close of business Pacific Standard Time on December 15, 2021, written confirmation that you will comply with these demands. You are specifically advised that any failure or delay in complying with these demands will likely compound the damages for which you may be liable. If [Company Name] does not receive a satisfactory and timely response, [Company Name] is prepared to take all steps necessary to protect [Company Name]'s valuable intellectual property rights, without further notice to you.
The above is not an exhaustive statement of all the relevant facts and law.
[Company Name] expressly reserves all of its legal and equitable rights and remedies, including the right to seek injunctive relief and recover monetary damages."
If anything I would have thought they should be the ones changing their name, as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product
292 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 252 ms ] threadFuck people like this. I feel bad for the Op, but sadly, I am jaded by the BS games that bullies play and win. I wish karma 1000x upon people that do this kind of bullshit.
We've all seen how part of the responsibilities of a brand is to protect it, but as someone else posted, there are ways of not being an asshole when protecting one's brand. Ultimate face saving for the company in question would be to realize what is ocurring and fire the legal team they have hired for this role, apologize for their behavior to the Op, and then amicially work out a resolution. However, I realize that this is such a low chance of ever happening to be laughable.
(Not legal advice, etc.)
Yep, when somebody else started using my trademark in a slightly related business, I called my lawyer and discussed. We decided to offer that they license the trademark for $1 and agree to discuss with me before using it in any new way. That way my trademark is protected and I don’t need to be an asshole.
Worked out well, we even threw each other business occasionally, and they went out of business after a couple years anyway.
https://www.legalteamusa.net/trademark-law-first-to-use-v-fi...
There... is no relation between the two?
My suggestion would be to either A) ignore and see if they go away, and/or B) have a domain name lawyer send a reply showing you won't roll over. That's usually enough for parties like these to back down.
If you need a lawyer recommendation send me DM me on Twitter (@marckohlbrugge). More than happy to help.
FWIW, some people might mention a procedure called 'UDRP' which is typically used by TM owners to quickly and cheaply get a TM-infringing domain name. However, one of the requirements for a successful UDRP case is that the TM needs to have been issued BEFORE the domain name was registered. Which is not the case here. So a UDRP approach would fail for them.
The other way for them would indeed be to sue and try to claim TM infringement in court. I don't have much experience with TM law, so I'm not sure what your odds of winning are. But there might even be a way to get their TM invalidated.
TL;DR: Talk to a lawyer.
P.S. If they have money for lawyers, they might also have money to buy your domain name. I wouldn't propose a purchase until you've talked to a lawyer (as it could hurt your case), but it's something to consider for later on.
--------------
(ix) Describe, in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular,
[...]
(3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith
--------------
Marc, do you have an email address?
Note that I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with similar issues before through a qualified lawyer. Happy to introduce you. Not sharing name here publicly, because that could potentially be used against me. (i.e. someone intentionally creating a conflict of interest, etc)
get in touch with lawyers dealing with IP/trademarks
you can have a brief talk w/ them to discuss options before making any decision :)
I'd evaluate what your endgame is. If your endgame is to keep the domain then I'd get a lawyer in order to make it clear that you will respond to legal challenges (and, yes, the bill is going to run up). If you were willing to sell, for a price, then you should try to figure out how much a legal challenge would cost them and set a price a bit higher than that.
Is it fair? Absolutely not, but the US legal system is set up so that those with the deepest pockets often win. It isn't a fair fight for normal citizens, and even having the law on your side is often not enough because it is a financial battle more than a legal one.
Either way may be wise to lawyer up today, either for a better selling price, cause them to back off entirely, or move it into the "bury you with costs" phase of bullying.
"This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs cannot sue companies in a state where they may do business, but do not have significant connections to that state."
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS)
https://www.andruswagstaff.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-plai...
obtw there's serious risk of trying to defend a suit yourself. Maybe the judge would take pity on you and grant a continuance for you to find counsel.
"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice. Unless you get a good percentage of her price." -Tom Lehrer, Be Prepared
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrheaWuShU
If OP has first use in commerce that predates theirs they could start, or threaten to start, the paperwork to have the trademark tossed. If they see you are asking questions that aren't a response to bullying, but that would precede a legal an attack their trademark directly, they might find themselves on a different footing.
Regardless, the possibility, I would think puts you in a better negotiating position if you're looking for an offer, or just want to make them go away.
Seeing a lawyer is likely the way to go. Also, I notice you use the term "solicitor" which makes me think any US law-based answers are less likely to be grounded in reality for you, so add more than your usual pinch of salt to anything you see here, including what I wrote!
If not - they'll auto-win and Verisign will happily transfer the domain to crooks.
If you are in the USA, the law is on your side: just because they registered the mark doesn't take away your rights.
In addition, if they are doing something different from you (or perhaps you're using the domain for non-business purposes) they have no claim. You can open McDonald's garden shop (even if your name isn't McDonald) and unless you made it look like a McDonald's restaurant (trying to cause confusion) it's none of the restaurant company's business.
Best, unfortunately, is to get a lawyer. If your country has a "small claims" court you could even sue them to get back your lawyer costs, but those are likely to be small in any case.
Good luck!
But then they use Pacific Time Zone.
Solicitor doesn't necessarily mean Canada.
First use is a strong defense, but you will need to defend it. If you have similar products and can show first use, as you claim, perhaps negotiating a sale of your entire business including the domain would be something to offer them.
Usually this kind of tactic happens because they've looked at you and guessed you don't have financial capital to defend yourself. Unfortunately, because it's very difficult to prove they're acting in bad faith, there's likely no way to recover your costs of defense.
TM's are cheap so its an easy trick and a lawyers letter doesn't cost much either, but its a legal game you may well be forced to play, because they might go to the domain registrar and try it on with them to get your domain.
Unfortunately these are the additional cost we can be forced into playing if someone with more money wants something from you like in this case your .com name. You could also see if your domain registrar as some sort of arbitration which could keep costs down or lower than using a lawyer. I think divorce lawyers best typifies some of them thrive on disputes. Good luck!
It is ridiculous, and the only reason for this is because they have no legal right to the domain name.
and so the racket continues
Not that their advice is wrong - you should consult a lawyer over internet advice. But the "everyone else is wrong, listen to me" flavor is a bit heavy-handed.
Legal questions come up on HN from time to time and the usual response is a bunch of wannabe lawyers incorrecting one another, and if OP follows any of their advice, Bad Things could result. I spoke up early this time in what was perhaps a foolish attempt to short-circuit this.
No competent attorney is going to give legal advice here -- money aside -- because they would be violating their professional ethics code by doing so. Giving legal advice requires knowing facts at a very detailed level (the degree to which is rarely found in the post), knowing the laws in the jurisdiction(s), and having relationships and experience. Not to mention attorney-client confidentiality, and other reasons.
This isn't someone trying to rope someone into a racket for their own gain, it's "Our laws and legal system are a clusterfuck that varies wildly from region to region. Get a free (or at least cheap) consult instead of taking a risk trying to navigate this yourself".
There is no situation in which it is worthwhile to take the risk to try and navigate that clusterfuck yourself. Spend the 50USD or so and the hour of your time it'll cost at most to get a consult and go from there. At best you can get something out of this whole interaction but at worst if you don't consult a lawyer you can end up without the domain, without any money from selling the domain, and saddled with legal fees defending a lawsuit against you.
No reason to tip your hand until a lawyer tells you to. For instance, the last time I dealt with a lawyer, they had me send responses directly, in hopes the other side would underestimate our position. It worked, fwiw.
Millions of Americans don't have e-mail. They're just on social media. What then?
That's why important things are always sent by mail. Very important things by certified mail.
If an email address can't be found, the correspondence can be delivered through other means if necessary (mail, process server, etc.). But generally, there has no longer been a need to waste paper and postage to deliver notices since email became practically ubiquitous.
Having, or publishing, an email address does not mean I care to, choose to, or will in fact receive email sent by you; or that I will display or treat it in the fashion you desire.
Obviously, “hire a lawyer,” is sometimes right. But if I hired a lawyer every time I was told to, I would be out hundreds of hours of billing fees. Anecdotally, I’ve never fucked anything up royally. That doesn’t mean that I made the right decision, but is something I strive for.
Spending $300-1000 on a consult every time I might need one is like taking an antibiotic every time I might have encountered a bacteria. It’s important to qualify and spend money when I actually need to rather than every time.
It’s like those people who say “don’t criticize my book until you read it” (since that usually means that it makes them some money to have me buy their book). If I had to read every book to figure out if I should like it or not, that’s impossible. I need to develop effective evaluations and filters to prevent me from wasting my time and money.
The outcome here could be that OP loses their domain name. If they just want to give it up, they don't have to hire an attorney. Easy answer.
But if they do want to keep the domain name, when paid opposing counsel comes knocking at the door, they need to lawyer up, plain and simple.
I have received threaten letters before and have responded with "I dispute these claims. Please do not contact me again in any manner" and I never heard from them again.
I don't know enough about the company sending the threatening letter here, so I can't say if that would work or not here, but it is very possible you don't need a lawyer.
Indeed, but if you take no action at all, the opposing counsel does take action, and you don't contest the action, then the default outcome could be a forced transfer of the domain.
They are going to have a hard time finding a case that set a precedent that you can take over another company's website because you registered a similar company 5 years later. Lookup nissan.com
There's more to this issue than just the naked law and legal procedure. Context matters, and experienced lawyers help you navigate situations. They're called "counsel" for a reason. :-)
Actually I’ve been surprised to find that many times even high priced attorneys are usually willing to spend 20-30 minutes+ giving you some general advice before even retaining them. I’ve gotten very valuable advice this way several times at no cost.
There are scrupulous and unscrupulous lawyers, much as in any profession.
There are situations where this is very good legal advice. Collecting things you are owed from people who don't want to give them up takes time and money (and involves risk), and even when it nominally works the systems intended to make you whole for the additional costs don't always, and especially often don't value time (both delay and the consumption of your personal time) as much as you do.
A lawyer's job isn't just to advise you on what the law says you are entitled to, but more critically to do so on the course of action that will best achieve your interests given the pragmatics of the legal system.
Both of the times my wife and I have consulted an attorney, they provided an overview of the relevant legal and practical context, a description of options of how to approach it and what they could do as part of that and the fee structure involved, and a description of why hiring them would probably not be cost-effective for the issue at hand.
Have a home issue where the builder owes me $100k in an open-and-shut case… but there are a dozen other people in the same situation, his company has folded and he’s under indictment for fraud in an unrelated case. My lawyer advised me to just move on with my life as any chance of collecting is near-zero.
As another anecdote, my experience with developers is that developers will repeatedly tell you that the software isn't complete and requires extra attention to keep it running and to maintain it, and that it needs extra time for refactoring, despite it functioning correctly right now...
Is that not true in most cases? A running system will eventually become vulnerable to attacks, and/or services it relies on may be deprecated. The last thing you want is to be in a situation where your software is easily exploitable, but your dependencies are so far behind that a fix becomes a multi-month or year long project.
I got a semi-serious traffic ticket in Colorado in 2014, but I lived in California. I forgot about the ticket, and remembered a couple years later. I wanted to clear up the situation, but navigating the court system from a different state was challenging. I decided hiring an attorney local to the area would be easier than traveling to Colorado.
I called maybe 6 to 8 attorneys, and they fell into three categories: too expensive, too inexperienced, or just right.
Too expensive sounded like “we’ll need a $2000 retainer to even look at your case.”
Too inexperienced sounded like “I just graduated from law school, and I’ll give you a super good rate for the experience of working on your case.”
Just right sounded like “I know the district attorney who is overseeing your case. Their name is $NAME, and here’s exactly how I’m going to handle your case… <time passes> …I might be able to handle this for $500, but it could cost maybe double that if it’s more work than expected.”
I got the matter resolved for between 1X and 2X the minimum estimate, and was happy with the results.
One lawyer I hired to defend me in a contractual pay dispute said to me on the first meeting with both sides "Do not let this get to court. If this goes to court the only people that will win are me and the other lawyer. We'll both get to take an extra vacation this year." So, 1% of lawyers are not scum.
Luckily it didn't need to go to court. I walked into the meeting, let the other side play hardball, "We're not going to pay you any of the money we owe you, go fuck yourself." and then showed them in the contract they had signed where it says they don't own any of the copyright to any of the work I developed for them. They left the room and came back several minutes later with a cheque.
This is also the experience of a few friends I consult each time I weight "do I need a lawyer". So my experience is 100% the opposite of yours.
How many times have you used a lawyer for something and had your example happen? How many times have they not done what you claim? Care to share examples?
You're not necessarily wrong, but that's definitely a survivalship bias. You only need to lose once for a game over, so everyone still playing underestimates the stakes at play, as there is close to no interaction to people that have lost.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
I’m not sure of a good way to balance out and correct for my bias other than just trying to think critically for when I need and don’t need a lawyer.
One type of error is paying a lawyer when you didn't need one, in which case, you're out $X.
The other type of error is not paying a lawyer when you did need one, in which case, you're out $Y.
In my experience, the values here are frequently $Y >>> $X.
In the end, the choice is yours; you rolls your dice and takes your chances.
So it doesn’t need to be expensive to request the support of a lawyer.
The "juridisch loket" is an organisation that provides free legal advice and is financed by the Dutch government. This is probably a better option in most cases.
With that said, this guy definitely needs to consult with a lawyer.
bruh consults are free, you're getting worked
[0] Dutch example: "Het Juridisch Loket"
Knowing your rights, reading the law and discussing it is a perfectly fine thing to do for everybody.
Sure. I am a former law student (in mid career when I did that), worked in legislative office, spent a large part of my career as a government program analyst that did lots of legal/compliance analysis, and spend huge amounts of reading and discussing the law, legal rights, etc.
But when people have an immediate concrete legal problem with substantial property or other interests at stake, whatever other discussion of my understanding of the involved law involved might be interesting, the only correct advice in ~99.997% [0] of circumstances from anyone who is not a lawyer, or even just not the person involved’s lawyer on the matter, is to get someone who is your lawyer (at least for the length of a consultation) review and advise.
[0] there are situations where the practical context is such that the law and legal advice are irrelevant, though they are quite exceptional.
Speaking as a former law student that left because I got back into technology, and who is a fairly educated layman on the law but not someone with any financial interest in how people approach legal services, this.
For as long as people enjoy reading, writing and discussing, the only important thing is that readers can distinguish between "legal advice" and something some random person said on the internet.
It’s sort of like Google programming isn’t it? I’m sure you’ll get it to work, but you hopefully wouldn’t do it if you were building medical software that could end up killing people. That’s when you pay the experts.
The flip side to that is that it is illegal in most states to give legal advice to someone unless you are a lawyer. You can give legal information, but not advice.
[Illinois once tried to prosecute me for the crime, so I have some experience]
Take the letter. Delete it. Engaging is the fastest way to lose the domain. Their Lawyers want you to engage and start making written statements. Don't.
"Seems like an excellent way to lose your domain in a default judgement"
Lol. Don't ignore legal paperwork or court dates, which this isn't.
There's more to this issue than just the naked law and legal procedure. Context matters, and experienced lawyers help you navigate situations. They're called "counsel" for a reason. :-)
Obviously they have the OP's address, so if they fail to serve him the judgement should be easy enough to set aside.
I'd do absolutely nothing in this circumstance until and unless they actually initiate a legal proceeding. If they did sue for the domain, depending on the value of brand I probably lawyer up, and perhaps seriously consider counter-suing them for both their domain and the use of the business name itself.
1) This is an ex co-worker . I believe she's well versed in such things. I get nothing for this mention.
https://kinneyfirm.com/
2) That said, one of the keys to trademark is being in the same industry, such that the public might get confused.
Apple Computer striking a deal with Apple Records, once the former started to sell music, is a good example. Prior to that, there was no (legal or market) overlap of the two.
John Lennon himself described it as: "we've got this thing called 'Apple' which is going to be records, films, and electronics – which all tie up."
Note that this is generally true for trademark law, but there are things like the ICANN/WIPO UDRP that can be used to expropriate domain names that have somewhat of a different standard.
Sorry for the snarkiness, but I'm continuously gobsmacked by how oblivious people, especially attorneys, can be to the fact that the Game of Justice as it is played in these parts is simply not accessible to the vast majority of people, who can only try to find another way to work around the system even if it's probably doomed to failure.
Is it wrong to try to be informed of the law (when ignorance is rarely an excuse)? To find out what rights a trademark or a domain name confer? Or to list precedent and examples, such as nissan.com? We should just stick our heads in the sand, resign ourselves to total ignorance and helplessness, and let the lawyers do all the thinking?
Lets make this specific. Look at this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522196
Are you saying every part of that comment, except for "This is probably not DIY territory; consult a lawyer knowledgable about trademark law to help you determine how to respond." is wrong?
For example, is the following statement wrong in the U.S.?
> Just like patents have a concept of "prior art," trademarks have a concept of "first use in commerce."
https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1...
Just like patents have a concept of "prior art," trademarks have a concept of "first use in commerce."
If you can demonstrate that you were the first to use the trademark, you have less to worry about (but nothing's guaranteed until litigated).
HOWEVER, if the party that registered the trademark can demonstrate that they used it prior to you, regardless of when they registered it, then they may have the upper hand.
This is probably not DIY territory; consult a lawyer knowledgable about trademark law to help you determine how to respond.
They may, in fact, recommend that you countersue for infringement. Might not be worth your time to pursue, but at least in theory you could claim that they're infringing on your trademark, because the U.S. follows a "first to use" rather than a "first to file" trademark system.
It goes further than that: trademarks are registered in 45 different classes and trademarks of different classes are completely independent, but the USPTO goes by
> "Trademark, same name, same class”
meaning more than one entity can register the same trademark name in the same class, because trademarks have a requirement of distinctiveness.
I usually would go straight to the throat and very personal.
Publish their letter on the domain they seek, capture all lawyer and company details and publish to site.
Use opsec for phone numbers, call them at terrible hours ( at home) to discuss offers of payment.
They are trying to bleed you with superior resources so guerrilla tactics are best ( legal of course)
They act different when they realize they are exposed and you don't care about normal processes.
Lol, I should make my own David v Goliath service.
Depends on the size of Goliath. No one scary came for me and a few 2am calls led to crickets.
IANAL, but if your goal is to give the them additional grounds for suing you, you may be off to a good start.
Can you further elaborate on your story I am very curious?
This is a really nasty idea. You’ll be bothering their family who have nothing to do with it. Sounds like you’re advocating harassment of people’s families.
Wrote a poem and song to explain:
---
WRONG is Tyranny.
TYRANNY is WRONG, inherently so, DISASTER is WHEN, all SPARKs vibrate LOW!
---
Tempest, Monster, part of the ONE.
cancer's role as DOVE, painful extraordinary, deserves LOVE, not respect or authority.
---
Vortex Universe
Sometimes we VIBRATE down, to ASCEND up again.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and it certainly may be imprudent to escalate. But there's no moral ground for them to stand on here - they're in the same category as any other spammer. Furthermore nowhere did OP advocate deliberately expanding the scope to their family. If phone calls at inconvenient-to-them times end up bothering their family as well, it's because they didn't do the work to separate their family from their ugly business.
In general I don't buy into the idea of declaring some times as off limits for phone calls, since society has never given me the same courtesy in the early morning. I'd much rather get calls at 10PM than 10AM, and yet it's somehow acceptable for businesses to return an afternoon call at 9AM sharp and pretend they're doing their best to communicate.
I'm just absolutely dumfounded that someone is seriously suggesting harassing a wife and children over a business relationship and repeatedly trying to justify it.
Nobody here has advocated harassing someone's wife or children. That's a straw man you created.
Real ‘nice family you have there, shame if someone would scare them with a few calls at 2am’ vibe there, and you know it.
These nastygram shakedowns deliberately cause personal stress to their victims (there is little other reason to send baseless legal demands), and so escalating the situation to be personally stressful for the attackers seems like an appropriate response.
As far as I can tell you're arguing that it's one thing to harass people during "business hours", but there is some greater principle whereby harassing them back at off hours is wrong because it might bother their personal associates.
If you don't want to get phone calls at inconvenient times either don't be a shithead in the first place (so that people calling you respect your schedule), or figure out how to silence your phones.
I'd morally disagree with that. Shouldn't deliberately cause someone personal stress, no matter what they've done to you.
So if someone robs you, then you shouldn't call the police on them? That's a direct implication of your statement here.
This whole "conversation" has been you quibbling using half-baked one-liners while avoiding any substance. I'm done.
No the opposite. You should call the police on them and let them deal with it. You shouldn't attempt to put any pressure on them yourself.
> avoiding any substance
Don't harass people. Use proper procedure to resolve disputes instead of calling them at their home.
That's really the depth of your thinking here? Sheesh, why did I bother?
If calling them at 2 am for some reason doesn't get the business result you want, and you have to go to court, the court'll ask you what reasonable steps you've already tried to resolve amicably, and the judge will think you're in the wrong when your opponent brings out a log of your 2 am calls to their residential address. Suddenly it'll look like they were just doing legitimate business and you were threatening and harassing.
Even if you aren't a moral person, it pays to do things properly.
> Two wrongs don't make a right, and it certainly may be imprudent to escalate
The root of the hacker mindset is looking at alternative solutions that go against the common narrative. It sounds like this method worked out for OP, so it is worth considering. I don't think I personally would go down this path due to possible complications, its utter pettiness, and the fact it is very easy to silence phones at off hours. But depending on the situation, maybe it would make sense.
I am a very moral person, hence having thought these things through. You're the one taking the shortcut of assuming anything done through "proper procedure" is moral. In my book, calling the cops on someone is most certainly escalating the situation and causing them personal stress. Deferring to the system is not an absolution from moral reasoning.
IANAL; this is not legal advice.
Furthermore, the USPTO allows multiple trademarks with the same name in the same class, because trademarks must be distinctive and unless the name is completely made up and demonstrably novel (e.g. Blu-Ray, Kodak) it's not distinctive and does not inherently constitute a trademark (though generic trademarks can acquire distinctiveness through use e.g. "apple" would probably be considered distinctive).
An interesting trivia is that Apple Computer got in trouble with Apple, the record label, when they introduced the Apple IIgs, because it had a musical instrument synthesiser chip built in.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29523431
Obviously, subsequent court cases and agreements allowed Apple Computer to get into music. Lots of details on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Somehow that does have the cadence and sound of a ‘premium’ brand, or at least faux-premium. The ‘registered’ symbol really sells it, though.
In these post-ironic times, I can easily see this name being used.
Just point them to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
Occasionally, our adoring public has a salient question. Here are the most frequently asked, along with clear, concise answers. Please only send mail if your question has not already been answered on this page.
http://milk.com/faq/
http://milk.com/value/
History of bud.com:
https://bud.com/history-of-bud-com/
- People often mention 0 countries. Where do you operate? Where was your company founded? How about the other company? Etc. How do you know if that helpful comment doens't assume something totally different?
- Are you really going to feel confident about your legal situation after reading comments on a platform like Hacker News?
Why would one need to legally own that domain name as a company name to keep the domain? Makes no sense to me
Let's say I get an email like the one OP got but I don't understand english and I take no action... Will the non-US registrar give them my domain by default?
UDPR is your friend