Our domain that we have owned since 1999 (projecthindsight.com) was stolen on September 2, 2023. Our registration did not expire. Above please see a snapshot WHOIS record from July 3, 2023 which clearly shows the projecthindsight.com domain was paid through March 15, 2027 at that time.
On 11/28/23, our attorneys filed a complaint. See complaint here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1353500/gov.uscourts.azd.1353500.1.0.pdf
Here is a news article about our complaint:
https://domainnamewire.com/2023/11/30/this-stolen-domain-name-lawsuit-has-a-twist/
After the "discovery" portion of our case, where our attorneys discovered more details regarding the theft, they sent a letter to the individual who was illegally holding the domain. Here is an excerpt from that letter:
"We understand you had initially offered to transfer the stolen property back upon
being reimbursed for your purchase of it, but that you had subsequently rescinded that offer. In connection with the similarly-stolen Express.com domain name, a US federal court found, in Express Media Group, LLC v. Express Corp., 2007 WL 1394163 (N.D. Cal.):
'Possession of the property coupled with refusal to return it is sufficient to
support a defendant’s liability for conversion. Schroeder v. Auto Driveway
Co., 11 Cal. 3d 908, 918 (1974). Here, plaintiffs concede that they do not know the identity of the person who changed the contact information on the domain name and subsequently sold it to defendants. In their answer, defendants admitted that they are currently the registrant of the domain name, and that they currently control it. Defendants also do not dispute that plaintiffs sent
defendants a letter dated May 9, 2006, asking for the return of the domain
name. Defendants have not returned the domain name to plaintiffs. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, plaintiffs have
shown that defendants have committed a wrongful act in retaining
possession of the domain name.' (internal citations omitted)
(See, also CRS Recovery, Inc. v. Laxton, No. C 06-7093 CW, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2008) 'It is of no consequence that Defendants purchased rl.com in good faith and without knowledge of Qiang's previous theft of the domain name. In Express Media Group, LLC v. Express Corp., 2007 WL 1394163 (N.D. Cal.), the court addressed the applicability of the good-faith-purchaser defense in an action for conversion of a stolen domain name.'
Based on the records available to us, there is no question that we will be able to establish the ProjectHindsight.com domain name was misappropriated by a known cybersquatter and thief. It did not expire, it was purchased by you from the thief, and you have thus far refused to return the domain name. These are precisely the elements of the cases cited above.
In addition to claims arising from theft of the domain name, we should address
another misconception concerning trade and service marks. While federal trademark registration confers certain procedural advantages, possession of enforceable rights in a trade or service mark does not require federal registration. Here, it is beyond question
that 'Project Hindsight' has long been associated with Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Black and their successive ventures, and carries with it valuable goodwill to which the Estate is successor. Merely failing to maintain a prior federal registration does not extinguish the underlying common law rights. Indeed, the Estate continued and still continues to engage in publishing and other present and planned activities at a temporary address - ProjectHindsight.net. Quite obviously, if the domain name did not embody the valuable trade and service mark rights developed by Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Black and their longstanding proprietorship of 'Project Hindsight', then it would not have been worth purchasing by you in the first place.
Under the relevant provisions of US trademark law, any person who registers,
uses or traffics in a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the mark of another can be held liable for discretionary damages, in the absence of actual damages, of up to $100,000 per domain name. (15 USC §1125(d) and 15 USC $1117) Again, federal trademark registration is not required as set forth in the self-explanatory case titled Law Offices of Diana Maier PC v. DianaMaierLaw.com, No. CV-20-02235-PHX-MTL, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2021)"
In February of 2024 our attorneys negotiated a settlement and our domain was transferred back to us. We are leaving the projecthindsight.com historical website up as an archive for those interested. Over time, the .net and .com sites will be integrated.