A lawsuit alleges two web hosts took down a website after a trademark complaint.
A Maryland resident has filed a lawsuit alleging troubling conduct around trademark claims and website takedowns. The complaint, filed by Kenneth Gaughan, centers on his site about emotional support animals at ESApet.org and asserts that two web hosting companies removed his site after receiving trademark complaints from a competitor.
Gaughan says that late last year both InMotion Hosting and DreamHost canceled hosting for ESApet.org following trademark notices from Elevate Rank LLC, the operator of ESApet.com. According to the suit, those notices prompted the hosts to take the site offline.
Elevate Rank holds a figurative trademark claim for the name “ESApet,” while disclaiming “ESApet” as descriptive. Gaughan maintains he has operated ESApet.org since 2019. Elevate Rank’s trademark filing, however, lists a first-use date of 2017, which Gaughan’s complaint calls into question. There was a site at ESApet.com around that time, but it used a different logo; the domain later expired and was offered for sale by a domain reseller.
The lawsuit also notes that Elevate Rank was not formed until 2021, raising additional questions about the timelines asserted in the trademark documentation. Those discrepancies are part of Gaughan’s broader claim that the trademark complaint was improperly used to pressure hosts into taking down his site.
Regardless of how the underlying trademark issues resolve, the case highlights a concerning practice: web hosts sometimes remove content or suspend accounts based on unverified complaints. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) establishes a safe harbor framework for addressing copyright claims—complete with notice-and-takedown procedures—there is no equivalent automatic protection for trademarks. Trademark owners seeking relief generally pursue either the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) to address cybersquatting or file suit in court for trademark infringement.
Gaughan’s filing contrasts how different hosts respond to trademark complaints. He alleges that although InMotion Hosting later told him it would not act without a court order or a trademark cancellation notice, the company had already removed his content after receiving the complaint. That sequence, if accurate, underscores the tension between a host’s desire to limit legal exposure and a site owner’s interest in continuity and due process.
The lawsuit raises broader questions about how hosting providers vet trademark claims and when they should suspend or remove sites. It also illustrates the potential consequences for small site operators when rivals use trademark filings or complaints as leverage. As the case proceeds, it may shed light on host policies and the standards applied when trademark assertions are presented outside of court or established dispute-resolution mechanisms.
For now, Gaughan’s complaint asks the court to address the alleged misuse of trademark notices and seeks relief for the takedown of ESApet.org. The suit serves as a reminder that trademark disputes can have immediate, tangible effects on website operators and that those effects can arise before any judicial determination about the merits of a mark.