Unmasking the Trademark Tactics: Investigating Michael Gleissner’s Prolific IP Filings and Domain Disputes

The digital landscape is a dynamic realm where intellectual property rights intersect with domain name ownership, often leading to complex disputes. In this intricate world, certain entities and individuals employ strategies that raise eyebrows and prompt scrutiny. Our investigation delves into the extensive activities of Michael Gleissner and his network of companies, which appear to be engaged in a systematic pattern of filing questionable trademark applications and initiating Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaints, frequently targeting valuable domain names they do not legitimately own.

A Familiar Playbook: Echoes of the “Trademark King”

The current situation bears a striking resemblance to a phenomenon observed in 2014, when an Indiana-based entity dubbed the “Trademark King” attempted to secure trademarks for the domain names of globally recognized companies, such as Twitter.com and Porsche.com. That audacious, albeit ill-conceived, endeavor was a clear illustration of a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. trademark law and the principles governing domain name rights. While the tactics then were amateurish, the underlying ambition to leverage trademarks for domain acquisition mirrors the recent activities under examination.

Fast forward to the present, and a similar, yet arguably more sophisticated, pattern has emerged, hitting closer to the core of domain name industry discussions. This investigation commenced following a series of UDRP filings concerning seemingly generic or dictionary-word domains, notably Apollo.com and Zero.com. The unusual nature of these cases, coupled with information provided by domain industry expert George Kirikos, signaled a deeper trend, which became more apparent with the recent publication of several UDRP decisions.

The Gleissner Network: A Web of Companies and Shared Directorships

At the heart of these contentious activities is Michael Gleissner, a figure well-known in the domain name acquisition sphere, primarily through his company, Bigfoot. A deeper dive into the UDRP filings reveals a connected network of entities. The UDRP for Apollo.com was initiated by Fashion One Television Limited, while Zero.com saw a complaint from CKL Holdings N.V. Intriguingly, both companies list Michael Gleissner as a director. While these particular UDRPs were subsequently withdrawn by the complainants, their initial filing raises pertinent questions about intent and strategy.

The scope of CKL Holdings N.V.’s UDRP activity extends further, with two additional domain-related disputes currently pending. Furthermore, two other companies linked to Gleissner—American Franchise Marketing Limited and China Capital Brands Limited—have also entered the UDRP arena, signaling a coordinated and broad-reaching approach to domain name disputes.

UDRP Outcomes: Losses and Findings of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The issue gained renewed prominence with the publication of two UDRP decisions against Bigfoot Ventures LLC this week, for the domain names BubblingBeats.com and Slized.com. In the case of BubblingBeats.com, the UDRP panel contemplated a finding of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), noting that Bigfoot should have been aware that some of its arguments, based on “bare assertions,” were destined to fail. However, the domain owner’s failure to respond to the complaint ultimately precluded an official RDNH finding.

The Slized.com UDRP, however, delivered a more decisive outcome. The panelist, Matthew Harris, explicitly found Bigfoot to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. He characterized the complaint as “totally inadequate,” “speculatively filed,” and highlighted that the complainant had misrepresented the nature of its use of the Slized mark. This finding is significant, as RDNH is a serious determination, indicating that a complainant has abused the UDRP process in an attempt to unfairly wrest a domain name from its legitimate owner.

The Legal Architects: Unpacking the Roles of Roman Popov and Jonathan Morton

The Slized.com UDRP decision also shed light on the legal representation involved, noting that Bigfoot was represented by Morton & Associates LLP. Panelist Harris pointed out that Morton & Associates appeared to share the same address as Bigfoot, and the LinkedIn profile of the attorney on that case identified them as “In House Counsel for Bigfoot Entertainment.” A quick online search for this term reveals the LinkedIn profile of Roman Popov.

Mr. Popov’s name might resonate with those familiar with past domain name controversies. His LinkedIn profile prominently lists him as one of the lawyers who represented Office Space Solutions in its egregious cybersquatting lawsuit against WorkBetter.com in 2015 – a case widely criticized for its aggressive and questionable legal tactics. According to his profile, Popov joined Bigfoot in May of the current year, indicating a direct involvement in these ongoing legal endeavors.

Another key legal figure linked to these activities is Jonathan Morton. His LinkedIn profile states his position since June 2015 as General Counsel – Intellectual Property Attorney for CKL Brands LLC & Fashionone Inc. His stated role includes resolving intellectual property disputes before a wide array of international IP offices, including USPTO, WIPO, OHIM, Benelux IPO, UK IPO, Hong Kong IPO, Singapore IPO, and ICANN. This extensive list underscores the global reach and systematic nature of the IP strategy being employed.

The Trademark Offensive: A Closer Look at the Filings

A search of Morton’s name in the USPTO database reveals an exceptionally high volume of trademark filings, illustrating the sheer scale of this operation. The applications are diverse, ranging from highly recognized brands to generic terms and specific domain names:

High-Profile Brand Names: Applications for marks like The Home Depot, filed on behalf of BNU Textiles Limited, claiming priority from a Pakistan trademark, and Enron, filed for Enron International Limited, claiming priority from a Benelux trademark, stand out. These filings targeting well-established brands raise serious questions about intent and potential infringement.
Generic and Dictionary Words: Trademarks such as Room (for HBH Finance Limited, claiming Benelux priority), Breakfast (for Breakfast International Limited, claiming Benelux priority), and US (for KPP Design Limited, claiming Benelux priority) demonstrate an attempt to secure broad rights over common language terms.
Domain-Specific Filings: Most notably, Morton is the attorney of record for 65 trademark applications that explicitly include “.com” in the mark. This specific strategy of trademarking domain names, especially those not owned by the applicant, is highly unusual and suggests an intention to leverage these trademarks in future domain disputes or acquisitions.

Notable .COM Trademark Applications:

Broad.com: Filed for Broad Partners Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark. Notably, Broad.com is currently owned by Broad Air Conditioning Co. Ltd in China.
Angle.com: Filed for Angle International Limited, also claiming priority on a Benelux trademark. Angle.com is registered to Digimedia, a prominent domain portfolio holder.
Seoul.com: Filed for CKL Citymedia Limited, claiming priority on a Pakistan trademark. Seoul.com is owned by Andrew Lee.
Antwerpen.com: Filed for CKL Citymedia Limited, claiming priority on a Pakistan trademark. Antwerpen.com is owned by Nat Cohen, another well-known domain investor.

What makes these filings particularly cohesive is that all applications are linked to the same London address (3rd Floor, 207 Regent Street). Furthermore, UK government records for each of these companies consistently list Michael Gleissner as a director, reinforcing the centralized nature of these widespread trademark activities. This pattern extends beyond the listed examples, with numerous other companies involved in similar trademark applications, all bearing Gleissner’s name as an officer.

Strategic Implications and Broader Context

Beyond these proactive filings, Gleissner’s network also appears to engage in defensive or counter-offensive IP maneuvers. As reported in a blog post from the previous year, Gleissner is also reportedly attempting to cancel existing trademarks through the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), now known as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This multifaceted approach suggests a comprehensive strategy to assert intellectual property claims across various fronts.

From an external perspective, the evidence strongly suggests that Gleissner and his companies are systematically attempting to utilize trademarks and the UDRP system as tools to acquire domain names. The track record of three terminated UDRPs and at least three losses, including one with a finding of RDNH, underscores the contentious nature and often questionable merit of these efforts. For current domain name owners, especially those whose domains align with the extensive list of trademark applications, heightened vigilance is paramount.

Attempted Outreach and Lack of Response

In the interest of balanced reporting, attempts were made to contact Popov, Morton, and Gleissner on August 17th via a combination of email and phone calls. The receptionist at Bigfoot Headquarters was informed that a story was being prepared concerning trademark applications filed by Gleissner’s companies, and an opportunity for response was extended. Jonathan Morton subsequently responded on Wednesday evening, requesting that questions be submitted via email.

The following key questions were posed to Morton:

Why are these companies filing trademarks in the form of “something.com” when the trademark applicants in some cases do not own the corresponding domain names?
Why are these companies filing UDRP complaints against domain names and then subsequently withdrawing them?
In light of the recent reverse domain name hijacking decision, do you plan to continue filing UDRPs?

Despite being informed that the story would be published on Thursday afternoon, no response was received from Morton by Friday morning. This silence leaves ample room for speculation regarding the underlying motivations and future trajectory of these strategic IP and domain activities.

A Call for Vigilance: The Unanswered Questions

The activities of Michael Gleissner and his associated entities represent a significant development in the intersection of intellectual property and domain name management. The systematic filing of domain-matching trademarks, often for names not owned by the applicant, coupled with a pattern of UDRP filings that are either withdrawn or result in losses and findings of reverse domain name hijacking, paints a clear picture. This approach could be interpreted as a form of “trademark squatting” or an aggressive leveraging of IP laws to claim digital assets.

For domain name owners, especially those holding valuable, generic, or geographically significant .com domains, it is critical to be aware of these tactics. Monitoring trademark databases and remaining prepared for potential UDRP challenges are essential steps in protecting digital assets against such aggressive maneuvers. The unanswered questions from Gleissner’s legal team leave the industry to ponder the implications of these tactics on the integrity of the UDRP system and the broader intellectual property landscape.

Below is a comprehensive list of domain name trademarks where Jonathan Morton is listed as the attorney of record. It is important to note that while Gleissner or his companies may own some of these domains, they do not own all of them:

host.com insider.com cosu.com NITROGENE.COM SPONK.COM TELEKA.COM MICK.COM SEOUL.COM ANTWERPEN.COM JAKARTA.COM HONGKONG.COM MUNICH.COM KUALALUMPUR.COM SINGAPORE.COM TAIPEI.COM TOKYO.COM ziro.com tudy.com dego.com bert.com lemmon.com contor.com cacadoo.com broad.com angle.com sponk.com xero.com teleka.com broad.com PESOLA.COM REMINE.COM DANFI.COM VERNOLA.COM CURANI.COM TEVISI.COM DANOVA.COM SARDANI.COM SAMELE.COM FIDATI.COM RIDOLA.COM RONZANO.COM BELTRAMO.COM RESTINI.COM RASOLI.COM RANITO.COM POTERA.COM POLEMIO.COM PITEO.COM MORESE.COM MANUTO.COM LUPORI.COM LAVOPA.COM LAUDO.COM LAPESARA.COM GAUDIANI.COM FURINO.COM DENTUTO.COM DEMERICO.COM DELMATI.COM DANERO.COM CARRANTE.COM CARMONE.COM GALLONINI.COM CALABBRESE.COM CAMMERIERI.COM