27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 108:
Line 108: + + +
→Legal Case Against Petronas
GoDaddy filed a motion to dismiss the case due to failure on the side of Petronas to state its claim. On May 5, 2011, the court denied the motion citing that some issues needed to be clarified including the terms forwarding and routing and if they were part of domain names registration services. Following, the court's ruling, GoDaddy filed a motion for summary judgement on the three allegations against the company. Go Daddy argued that it is not the registrant of the disputed domain names and based on ACPA, cybersquatting is the bad faith registration of domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark. In addition, the company asserted that its only role was it provided the registrant with an automatic infrastructure service to route the disputed domain names to his chosen websites. Petronas has no evidence to prove that GoDaddy acted in bad faith with the intention to gain profit from the Petronas trademark. GoDaddy effectively defended its position. On Janury 12, 2012, the court granted its motion for summary judgment. <ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>
GoDaddy filed a motion to dismiss the case due to failure on the side of Petronas to state its claim. On May 5, 2011, the court denied the motion citing that some issues needed to be clarified including the terms forwarding and routing and if they were part of domain names registration services. Following, the court's ruling, GoDaddy filed a motion for summary judgement on the three allegations against the company. Go Daddy argued that it is not the registrant of the disputed domain names and based on ACPA, cybersquatting is the bad faith registration of domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark. In addition, the company asserted that its only role was it provided the registrant with an automatic infrastructure service to route the disputed domain names to his chosen websites. Petronas has no evidence to prove that GoDaddy acted in bad faith with the intention to gain profit from the Petronas trademark. GoDaddy effectively defended its position. On Janury 12, 2012, the court granted its motion for summary judgment. <ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/77067353/Berhad-v-GoDaddy Berhad vs. GoDaddy]</ref>
==GoDaddy Sued for Downtime==
In September, 2012, a plaintiff sought a class action lawsuit against GoDaddy for its downtime on September, 10. GoDaddy makes a "99.99% uptime guarantee" for hosting, which would apparently equate to 43.2 minutes in a month. GoDaddy already has an established policy for downtime exceeding this .01% guarantee, “you may contact Go Daddy and request a credit of 5% of your monthly hosting fee from Go Daddy for that month. The credit may be used only for the purchase of further products and services from Go Daddy, and is exclusive of any applicable taxes.” The plaintiff alleges that he was not even given this word.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/09/20/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-go-daddy-downtime/ Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Go Daddy Downtime, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>
==References==
==References==