.spa: Difference between revisions

Line 44:

==Controversy==

Ownership stakes in the .spa gTLD are the subject of two separate lawsuits in the High Court of Hong Kong.

Ownership stakes in the .spa [[gTLD]] are the subject of two separate lawsuits filed by [[DotPH]] in the High Court of Hong Kong.

===DotPH Domains Inc. v. DotAsia Organisation Ltd., Namesphere Ltd.===

[[DotPH]] has indicated an intent to file suit against [[DotAsia]] and [[Namesphere]], alleging that DotPH is entitled to at least 20% of the authorized and issued shares of Namesphere.<ref name="namesphere"> [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cqttu2Dpk_PRlAbUddUIjTBf4YdT23sB/view Unfiled complaint - presumed to be a draft]</ref> The complaint alleges that Namesphere, a wholly owned subsidiary of DotAsia, accepted investment in the amount of $180,000 from DotPH, in exchange for 20% of the outstanding shares in Namesphere.<ref name="namesphere" /> The complaint alleges that DotAsia subsequently diluted DotPH's stake in Namesphere in violation of contractual and implied duties, and has neither issued stock to DotPH nor otherwise acknowledged DotPH's shareholder rights.<ref name="namesphere" />

Namesphere was formed to invest in and apply for new gTLDs. It was part of a coalition of organizations that put forward the [[ASWPC]] application for the .spa domain. This suit therefore has implications for the rights to the .spa gTLD.

===DotPH Domains Inc. & NSPH Ltd. v. Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council Ltd., ''et. al''===

On October 19, 2020 [[DotPH]] and its subsidiary entity [[NSPH Limited]] filed suit against [[ASWPC]], [[DotAsia]], [[Namesphere]], and individuals associated with those entities, alleging that DotPH's ownership in the .spa TLD was not being honored by defendants in their various capacities, that several of the defendants were in breach of contracts or agreements with DotPH, and that the individual defendants had breached duties of good faith, fiduciary responsibility, or agency in negotiations with or communications to DotPH and its principal, [[Joel Disini]].<ref name="spasuit"> [http://domainincite.com/docs/SPA-Writ-of-Summons-(20201019).pdf Complaint and Summons, DotPH Domains, Inc. et al v. Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council Ltd., et al]</ref>

==References==

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ==Controversy==
-Ownership stakes in the .spa gTLD are the subject of two separate lawsuits in the High Court of Hong Kong.
+Ownership stakes in the .spa [[gTLD]] are the subject of two separate lawsuits filed by [[DotPH]] in the High Court of Hong Kong.
+===DotPH Domains Inc. v. DotAsia Organisation Ltd., Namesphere Ltd.===
+[[DotPH]] has indicated an intent to file suit against [[DotAsia]] and [[Namesphere]], alleging that DotPH is entitled to at least 20% of the authorized and issued shares of Namesphere.<ref name="namesphere"> [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cqttu2Dpk_PRlAbUddUIjTBf4YdT23sB/view Unfiled complaint - presumed to be a draft]</ref> The complaint alleges that Namesphere, a wholly owned subsidiary of DotAsia, accepted investment in the amount of $180,000 from DotPH, in exchange for 20% of the outstanding shares in Namesphere.<ref name="namesphere" /> The complaint alleges that DotAsia subsequently diluted DotPH's stake in Namesphere in violation of contractual and implied duties, and has neither issued stock to DotPH nor otherwise acknowledged DotPH's shareholder rights.<ref name="namesphere" />
+Namesphere was formed to invest in and apply for new gTLDs. It was part of a coalition of organizations that put forward the [[ASWPC]] application for the .spa domain. This suit therefore has implications for the rights to the .spa gTLD.
+===DotPH Domains Inc. & NSPH Ltd. v. Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council Ltd., ''et. al''===
+On October 19, 2020 [[DotPH]] and its subsidiary entity [[NSPH Limited]] filed suit against [[ASWPC]], [[DotAsia]], [[Namesphere]], and individuals associated with those entities, alleging that DotPH's ownership in the .spa TLD was not being honored by defendants in their various capacities, that several of the defendants were in breach of contracts or agreements with DotPH, and that the individual defendants had breached duties of good faith, fiduciary responsibility, or agency in negotiations with or communications to DotPH and its principal, [[Joel Disini]].<ref name="spasuit"> [http://domainincite.com/docs/SPA-Writ-of-Summons-(20201019).pdf Complaint and Summons, DotPH Domains, Inc. et al v. Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council Ltd., et al]</ref>
 ==References==