VeriSign, Inc., the leading domain name registrar, signed a stipulation agreeing to halt its slamming of customers of competing registrars. The stipulation, dated June 20, 2002, was entered by U.S. District Court Judge Mary Murguia in Phoenix, Arizona in the action brought in June 2002 against VeriSign by rival registrar GoDaddy Software. Go Daddy accused VeriSign of consumer fraud, deceptive advertising and misappropriation of trade secrets in connection with VeriSign’s aggressive customer acquisition campaign centered on the mailing of controversial "Domain Name Expiration Notices" to customers of VeriSign’s competitors encouraging them to switch their registrations to VeriSign.
Under the stipulation, VeriSign agreed to halt mailing its "Domain Name Expiration Notices" to domain name registrants not already registered with VeriSign. "It is our hope that this order will send a strong message to anyone in this industry contemplating the use of such dubious marketing tactics to clean up their act," said [pdf format] Go Daddy founder and President Bob Parsons.
According to Go Daddy, VeriSign said that it stopped mailing the domain expiration notices on May 14, 2002 when a preliminary injunction was entered in a Maryland court in a similar suit against VeriSign filed by another registrar, BulkRegister. But customers of registrars like Go Daddy continued to receive the notices well into June. A VeriSign spokesman claimed that any notices customers received after May 14, 2002 were already in the bulk mail pipeline.
Why This Matters: Go Daddy’s stipulation went further than the preliminary injunction against VeriSign attained by BulkRegister because it applied to VeriSign’s mailings to all registrars’ customers. It is unclear how much benefit the struggling VeriSign received from its aggressive slamming campaign, although that issue is likely to be addressed in the Go Daddy and BulkRegister lawsuits.
This article originally appeared in ADLAW By Request, a publication of Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP.
The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.