Text of in rem complaint Latham & Watkins vs LW-IUF.COM et. al., 1:23-cv-01486-CMH-LRV (EDVA October 31, 2023).

From the complaint:

An unknown scammer has maliciously used the Abusive Domain Names in violation of Latham’s trademark rights to unlawfully, and in bad faith, derive a profit by defrauding members of the public. In the emails that Latham is aware of, the scammer has used the Abusive Domain Names to email members of the public and Latham’s clients purporting to be a Latham partner in Latham’s Paris office. It is possible that the scammer has impersonated different Latham attorneys or staff in other instances of which Latham is presently unaware. In the emails, the scammer attempts to collect payment for a purportedly pending invoice. By registering and using the Abusive Domain Names and impersonating Latham personnel, the scammer has not only attempted to defraud Latham’s clients and other members of the public, the scammer has violated and harmed Latham’s longstanding trademark rights and damaged Latham’s outstanding reputation and goodwill. This conduct constitutes cyberpiracy in violation of the ACPA, and Latham accordingly seeks an order transferring the Abusive Domain Names to Latham to halt this scam.

The Anti-cybersquatting consumer protection act (section 43(d) of the Lanham Act) allows for in rem jurisdiction over a domain name if, despite diligent efforts, the plaintiff cannot identify the person who registered or used the abusive domain name. In rem jurisdiction is appropriate in the forum of the registrar or registry. Verisign, administrator of the .com gTLD registry, resides in Virginia, and thus this suit has been filed in the EDVA.

Reuters coverage here.