1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Contracts & E-Commerce

Contracts & E-Commerce

Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.09

Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT


Greedy domain name vendors, mainly based in China and Hong Kong, are responsible for one of the Internet’s latest money-making scams. If your name or company appears on a trade mark or a company record that can be found on the internet, you may be targeted.

Introduction
Chinese domain vendors buy lists with email addresses of executives of Western companies and look for trade marks. Then they try to get the name and email address of a senior representative of the targeted company. If they can not find any, they simply use the info@email or use a generic email that they find on a website to send their deceptive email to.

Working method
Pretending to be a domain name registrar, the swindlers write to trade mark owners to inform them that a third party is about to registrar a domain name in China that incorporates the trade mark owner's IP rights. Kindly they offer to registrar the domain name on behalf of the legitimate trade mark owner in exchange for an unspecified fee. By outlining short deadlines they force the worried trade mark owners to prompt into action.

How to respond to these deceptive letters?
Although there is no such a third party that is interested in registering a Chinese keyword in a Western company's name and no company trying to register the names, a number of unwary trade mark owners have fallen victim to the scam.

If you are ever targeted by these fraud, there is absolutely no rush to react. Please ignore their email or reply with a firm rebuttal using a one-liner, like:

"We will not be registering any domains through your services. Please note that the terms that you select are close to/match our trade marks. We protect our trade marks".

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.12.25

IPR May Be Discretionarily Denied Because of “Settled Expectations” Where Petitioner Has Long Known of Challenged Patent

Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges.  It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025....