Diamond.com accuses New York firm of profiting from similar name

By Patrick Danner

The Web sites Diamond.com and Diamonds.com are only a letter apart, but they might as well be world’s apart when it comes to use of the domain names.

Sunrise-based Diamond.com Inc. charges that New York-based Diamonds.com is trying to piggyback on Diamond.com’s name and has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Miami seeking an order preventing the company from using the plural version of the word.

The move comes about two months after the Sunrise company was purchased by online diamond seller Odimo.com Inc., whose majority owner is the Steinmetz Diamond Group of Israel. Odimo says it is the largest source for buying diamonds on the Internet.

Diamonds.com, meanwhile, is owned by Rapaport Corp., and, until very recently, according to the suit, was devoted exclusively to providing information on the diamond trade to those in the industry. Of late, though, Diamonds.com has been depicting itself as a retailer by selling diamonds and earrings to consumers over the Internet, the suit claims.

The domain name Diamond.com was created in 1993, according to the suit. Diamonds.com was created in August 1994, according to Network Solutions Inc., an Internet registration service.

“It is clear from the timing and nature of the defendant’s actions that they are simply trying to create confusion and, perhaps, benefit from the many millions of dollars being invested by Diamond ‘singular’ to promote this name,” says Samuel I. Burstyn, the Miami lawyer who filed the suit, along with Miguel M. de la O and Daniel L. Leyton of de la O & Marko.

Burstyn declines to say how much business his client has lost as a result of the similarities between the two names, but says he will try to compare client lists.

Attempts to reach Rapaport principal Martin Rapaport via e-mail and phone in Israel were unsuccessful. But Rapaport does refer to the similarities between the names in a report it issued in May. It was attached to the suit as an exhibit.

“Odimo.com has just bought the name Diamond.com and is, in our opinion, illegally and unfairly encroaching on our proprietary use of Diamonds.com as a consumer site for and about diamonds,” the report states.

That statement, however, didn’t sit well with the Sunrise company, which says it was defamed by the remarks. Clearly, the Sunrise company believes millions of dollars are at stake in this name game. It says it generated more than $5 million in revenue from its Web site in the month leading up to its lawsuit. In March, it received $125 million in funding from various conglomerates. And it’s preparing for an initial public offering within two months.

Consumers that look for Diamond.com but find Diamonds.com first may mistake the defendants’ products for the Sunrise company’s products, the suit contends.

“In the old days, people used to follow the coal wagons and pick up little bits of coal that fell off along the way,” Burstyn says. “They are intentionally trying to walk behind our coal wagon. The coal that drops off our wagon is still our coal.”


Web Published Thursday, June 15, 2000
Published in Daily Business Review on: Thursday, June 15, 2000