Masters Of Their Domain (Name)

An unpublished opinion of the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed a decision regarding a law firm breakup dispute over a domain name

After a contentious dissolution of the law firm of the Affiliated Attorneys of Pistotnik Law Offices (AAPLO), including a lawsuit to accomplish its split, Brad Pistotnik (Brad) entered into a settlement agreement with the receiver for AAPLO; Brian Pistotnik (Brian); Brian Collignon (Collignon); and Brian and Collignon’s new law firm, Pistotnik Law Offices, LLC (PLO). In August 2022, Brad filed a petition requesting specific performance of the settlement agreement after seeing a commercial with the former AAPLO’s website used. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in Brad’s favor. Brian, Collignon, and PLO now appeal, raising multiple issues, which essentially boil down to Brian wanting his firm to continue using the email addresses containing what was AAPLO’s domain name. Brad challenges this court’s jurisdiction, arguing that Brian acquiesced to the district court’s judgment.

After reviewing the record, we find Brian’s potential acquiescence does not bar our consideration of this appeal. However, the appellants’ claims fail on the merits. Brian and PLO could have raised claims regarding the settlement agreement’s validity during the prior litigation, but did not, and the claims are now barred in this litigation by res judicata. And although Collignon’s similar claims are not barred, they are unpersuasive.

Additionally, Brian’s equitable estoppel argument regarding use of the domain name fails to show that Brad had a duty to speak or that he was induced by Brad’s silence on his use of the domain name. Likewise, although Brian’s equitable estoppel argument regarding the email address establishes that Brad may have had a duty to speak about the email addresses, Brian fails to show prejudice resulting from Brad’s silence, and we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision.

The former firm and the break up

AAPLO was a law firm owned 50/50 by Brad and Brian. In 2014, after Brad left the firm, he filed an action to dissolve AAPLO. Subsequently, AAPLO was liquidated and the district court appointed a receiver to wind down the firm’s affairs under K.S.A. 17-6808, which outlines the appointment and powers of receivers. Brad then formed a new law firm, Brad Pistotnik Law, P.A., of which Brad was the shareholder. Brian and Collignon both became members of PLO.

After the parties filed motions for temporary injunction in the dissolution action, the district court issued an order, in relevant part directing the parties’ disputed use of AAPLO’s internet domain name, “pistotniklaw.com.” Under this order, because Brad had controlled the pistotniklaw.com website the month prior, Brian would control the website for an equal period. At the end of Brian’s period of control, which would have occurred in mid-August 2014, the court ordered the website to “be reconfigured so that it simply contains links to Brad Pistotnik’s website and to whatever website Brian Pistotnik wishes to create.” 

In July 2015, the parties to the receivership—Brad, Brian, Collignon, Pistotnik Law Offices, LLC (Brian’s new firm, signed by Brian and Collignon as members), Brad Pistotnik, P.A. (Brad’s new firm, signed by Brad as member), and David Rapp (as Receiver)—negotiated a settlement agreement containing, among other items, the following terms:

“8. CLOSING OF THE RECEIVERSHIP. The Receivership shall be closed as soon as practicable. It is understood that a suit has recently been filed in which the RECEIVER has been named as a defendant, which may require some action by the RECEIVER. . . . . “

28. DOMAIN NAMES. BRAD PISTOTNIK agrees that the domain name pistotnik.com shall not be used in connection with legal services. BRIAN PISTOTNIK agrees that the domain name pistotniklaw.com shall be removed from the internet and killed, and the parties agree that nobody will use any of the content from that website in the future for any purpose.”

Fight over domain name

Before we can directly address Brian’s legal arguments, we first attempt to flesh out the parties’ technical disagreements regarding the relationship between the domain and the email addresses, and whether the email addresses can function independently of the domain. Neither party provides us with authority to settle these disputes.

Brad appears correct that a domain name and a website are distinct concepts. A domain name is essentially the tool to locate an internet website. Smith, 1 Internet Law and Practice § 13:10 (2024 ed.). Domain names translate into a string of numbers that form a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) to access a website. A website, then, is a collection of web pages that can be located and accessed using the domain. Vinnick, A Primer, Guiding Your Clients down the Information Highway, 51 No. 10 DRIFTD 57 (2009). Similarly, a domain name can be used for email services. For example, a person who registers the domain name ‘example.com’ can then use that domain name to establish an email address ending in @example.com. See McDonald, Reich, and Bain, Intellectual Property and Privacy Issues on the Internet, 79 J. Pat. and Trademark Off. Soc’y 31, 35 (1997).

At the time the pistotniklaw.com domain was established in 1998, it was both part of the firm’s email addresses, signifying that the users’ particular accounts were on the firm’s network, and part of the URL used to find the law firm’s website; for example, the firm’s URL was http://www.pistotniklawcom.

Brad’s position that use of the email addresses depends upon the operational status of the domain—if accurate—would dispose of Brian’s contentions, but Brad does not support his argument with authority. Likewise, Brian’s argument that the email addresses could be used separately from an inoperative domain is unsupported by any evidence or authority. As the party bringing the claim, it is his burden to designate a record sufficient to present his points to this court and to establish his claim. Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636, 644, 294 P.3d 287 (2013); Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(4) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 36). Here, he fails to do so, and we are unable to decide his claim on the technical aspects he presents.

Disposition

Brian has not demonstrated that Brad somehow intended to deceive him about the email addresses or mislead him with his silence. Moreover, Brian and his firm have already changed their email addresses to a different domain name to comply with the district court’s order. As a result, whether we consider the new email addresses to demonstrate a lack of prejudice under Brian’s estoppel theory, or as a bar to his claim under an acquiescence theory, in either case, Brian’s claim lacks persuasion. But without demonstrating how he is prejudiced, or showing Brad intended to deceive him, Brian’s estoppel argument fails, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the remedy inapplicable.

Affirmed.

(Mike Frisch)