Where can I find the latest information about the Federal Lawsuit and UDRP Action?

See UDRP Docket and the Lawsuit Docket for the latest information.

UPDATE:

Now that you've won the UDRP case, what is the status of the federal lawsuit you filed for cancellation of the Kooks Customs Headers Trademark?

We are continuing with our move to cancel the Kooks Custom Headers trademark.

But why continue with a lawsuit? What are your monetary damages in this instance?

This case is not solely about monetary damages; instead, we are intent on showing that the trademark for Kooks Custom Headers is invalid, thereby rendering moot any further actions on their part to exploit the UDRP process as a cheap means of wresting coveted domain names away from their lawful domain holders. Once the people behind Kooks Custom Headers embarked upon the path of claiming trademark protection as a means for grabbing domain names, they opened their trademark to scrutiny. We are confident their trademark claims cannot withstand such scrutiny.

How far will you go?

We will proceed until all legal options have been exhausted.

Would you settle this lawsuit?

Of course. We are familiar with the expensive and uncertain nature of any legal proceeding, and we are not unreasonable people, but the terms of any settlement agreement will be public and not subject to confidentiality clauses.

What is Reverse Domain Hijacking?
Reverse domain hijacking is the practice of unseating valid and legally registered domain name holders/registrants by accusing them of violating weak and/or non-existent trademarks related to the domain name. (see Wikipedia)

Why did you register the KOOKS.COM domain, and didn't you agree to the UDRP?
The domain was registered April 10th, 1996 to be used for a future internet venture. The ideas for this venture have changed over the years, but have included a Wiki type system of Kooks on the Internet (which the defendant of our lawsuit would fit nicely within) (see 1993 alt.usenet.kooks Post). Back in 1996, there was no such thing as UDRP, so we would have been hard pressed to agree to it.

You're not doing anything with the KOOKS.COM domain -- it was just pointed to a parking page, so why not just give it to them?
Over the years, we have developed many of our registered/purchased domains into real businesses. Some of these domains we had for over 10 years before landing on a plan for how to best utilize its name and traffic. We have had plans for Kooks.com from day one, and will eventually develop a website around the domain in the future. The domain is obviously valuable enough for Kooks Custom Headers to attempt to Hijack, but we're not the sort to just give away our valuable property willy-nilly.

Why not agree to the outcome of ICANN UDRP Process?
Trademark owners have used the procedure in certain cases to obtain ownership of domains they don't rightfully deserve, and the UDRP has a history of ruling in favor of the Trademark holder 80% of the time or more, no matter how weak or specious the trademark argument. (see UDRP Complaint)

Can you really file a lawsuit to prevent your domain from being Hijacked?
In the United States, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) 15 U.S.C. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) [15]permits the domain name holder the exclusive remedy to bring a civil action when their domain has been suspended, disabled, or transferred as a result of an ICANN proceeding, in order to establish that their use of the domain is not unlawful. The court is authorized under the statute to grant injunctive relief to the registrant, including reactivation or transfer of the domain to the registrant . . . so the answer is yes.

Isn't a lawsuit far more expensive than the UDRP Process?
Yes. UDRP complaints are cheap to file and easy to defend. As we previously stated, history shows that in 80% or more of the cases, the UDRP Arbitrator sides with the Trademark holder against the domain registrant, rightfully or not -- so if you can afford legal action to prevent your domain name from being Hijacked, it's the best course.

Is this a Joke? You didn't really file a lawsuit, did you? People say they will file a lawsuit all the time, and then don't.
You're right. A lot of people blow smoke when talking about attorneys and lawsuits, but we don't. You can download a copy of the legal action. (see Complaint)

Have you been in Trademark related disputes before?
Yes. Hormel filed an action to cancel the trademark of Spam Arrest, a related company. Hormel incorrectly assumed that they owned the word SPAM in all its permutations, yet after a four year battle, Hormel lost its trademark dispute while spending millions of dollars in legal proceedings. (see USPTO TTAB)

Kooks Custom Headers claims you had a link for "Kooks Headers" listed on the parking page, and people were confused. Isn't that a bad thing to do?
First, we had never heard of Kooks Custom Headers, and we had no knowledge of this link; second, no one from their company or legal team ever bothered to contact us to alert us that there might be confusion in order to allow us the opportunity to remedy the alleged situation; third, we would have blocked the terms "headers" and "custom headers" from appearing on the parking page had they simply asked; and finally, KOOKS is the plural form of the word KOOK, which is a generic, commonly used word in the English language that has nothing to do with mufflers or car parts. (see Dictionary)

Kooks Custom Headers has a Trademark for KOOKS. Doesn't that entitle them to your domain?
No, it doesn't. Yes, they have a US Trademark for KOOKS, but only in regards to automotive and motorcycle parts -- namely, exhaust headers and mufflers. Their trademark provides them certain protection in those areas only, much as Hormel's trademark provided them with protection when it came to canned or potted meat, but not an email spam blocking company. (see USPTO)

You say the KOOKS trademark application by Kooks Custom Headers was fraudulent -- how is that?

In their trademark application, they claim a "First Use" date of 1962 -- thirty two years before their company came into existence. Since Kooks Custom Headers was incorporated in 1996, and therefore did not exist prior to 1996, Kooks Custom Headers cannot assert trademark rights dating back to 1962; therefore, Global DNS has filed a lawsuit to cancel the Kooks Custom Headers Trademark as fraudulent.

Kooks Custom Headers claims you registered eight hundred domains within the last few years, and that you've registered other trademarked domains, such as ICANN-BRIEF.ORG, ICANN-PAPERS.COM, ICANNBRIEF.COM, ICANNBRIEF.ORG, and ICANNNEWS.COM, all of which show demonstrable bad faith.

Global DNS has not registered anything close to eight hundred domains in the last few years, nor do we own the trademarked ICANN domains they claim we own (Global DNS owns absolutely no ICANN domains, nor have we ever owned any ICANN domains). Kooks Custom Headers has again perpetrated a fraud (this would appear to be a pattern) by presenting "evidence" with no merit or backing in the hopes that their false information will prejudice the WIPO board against us, as ICANN is the body that created the UDRP Process and is a federally registered trademark of the same group.

Kooks Custom Headers claims that since you filed a lawsuit the very same day you were served with the UDRP complaint, this would suggest that Glboal DNS has been down this path before and is hoping to coerce Kooks Custom Headers to negotiate a high purchase of KOOKS.COM domain. They also claim that you essentially admitted as much by saying that you want to make it "expensive" for them to try and take your domain away.

Kooks Custom Headers has made many false statements -- either because of incompetent counsel or malicious intent, we have no way of knowing, but what we do know is that we have no interest in selling our domain to them, not now and not ever. The fact that we have quick and competent counsel that filed a lawsuit against Kooks on the same day that we were informed of Kooks' attempt to hijack our domain means only that we take this UDRP action seriously. We jealously guard our intellectual property, and absolutely refuse to make it cheap and easy for Kooks Custom Headers to hijack our domain. (see UDRP Complaint)

Kooks Custom Headers recently won a UDRP claim for the domain KOOKSHEADERS.COM. Doesn't that give them a clear entitlement to the KOOKS.COM domain?

No. While we agree that there is a likelihood of confusion in regards to KOOKSHEADERS.COM and the business of Kooks Custom Headers, the generic word "kooks" causes no confusion whatsoever, and Kooks Custom Headers is not entitled to our domain simply because they find it a desirable Internet property.

Who are you, and why are you so passionate about Intellectual Property?
The Managing Director of Global DNS is Brian Cartmell, who has had years of experience with Trademark holders who assert that they have specific rights where they most certainly do not. He and his companies have spent millions of dollars successfully defending themselves against unjustified lawsuits. We believe this is unfair and unwarranted. GlobalDNS wants other Domain Holders who rightfully own their domains to know that they can fight domain hijackers, and win!

What do you want the final outcome of this legal action to be?
First, we would like to see their UDRP complaint purged, as we have done nothing wrong by owning the Kooks.com domain and we are in no mood for a UDRP complaint record that might suggest otherwise; secondly, we would like to see them pay for the legal costs accrued as a result of our being forced to deal with this underhanded action; and finally, we would like a formal apology from George Kryssing Sr. who brought forward this UDRP complaint in an effort to hijack a valuable domain name that is not rightfully his. The Kooks.com domain is legally and rightfully ours -- we have been in possession of this domain since well before Mr. Kryssing even registered his own trademark, and the word "kooks" itself, in all its crazy glory, is not any one person's or one company's intellectual property. We intend to keep it that way.