ITFederal CEO Tran named as defendant in 2008 ‘Cybersquatting’ lawsuit

Court records obtained online from New York’s Southern District indicate that Truc V. “Curt” Tran and his VDN Systems business was sued by Citigroup Inc. for “Cybersquatting” a domain name <citi.net> in 2008.  Tran is CEO of ITFederal LLC, the company lauded since June 2015 as the first commercial client at the Royal Phoenix Business Park portion of the former Avtex Superfund site in Front Royal.  Citigroup was the result of a 1998 merger between Citibank (Citicorp) and the Travelers Insurance Group.

The cover page to the 2008 “Cybersquatting” lawsuit filed by Citigroup against VDN Systems and various other business identities of Truc V. “Curt” Tran.

The Citigroup lawsuit filed August 26, 2008, alleges that Tran tried to sell the domain name <Citi.net> to Citigroup for a price “in the millions of dollars”.  The Complaint alleges Tran made the offer after telling Citibank officials he had a proposal to sell the <Citi.net> domain and/or related business names listed in court documents as “Citi.net, Inc.” and “Citigroup Management Corporation” to a Middle Eastern group for the purpose of establishing an online banking business.  The Complaint also alleges Tran said he had an offer to be a part of that online banking business.

Tran responded to a question about the case through EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald.  McDonald said Tran’s perspective is that HE was being “Cyberbullied” by the larger Citigroup Company over a business he identified as Computer Information Technology Incorporated and its <citi.net> domain.  McDonald added that Tran said the case was settled “on his terms.”

We are currently awaiting a response from the Citigroup legal staff to Tran’s assertions about the case and the settlement.  Citibank and Citigroup appear to now control the <citi.net> domain.  As elaborated on below, control of the domain appears to be a primary outcome for a successful plaintiff in Cybersquatting lawsuits

Cybersquatting and Irony

Discovery of this Cybersquatting legal history for the CEO of ITFederal is somewhat ironic.  During our exploration of ITFederal LLC and questions raised by Front Royal Councilwoman Bébhinn Egger, McDonald explained confusion over a website alleging to be that of ITFederal LLC as a subsidiary of VDN Systems.

McDonald told us that Tran had been victimized by an attempt to sell that domain, <itffederal.com>, to him.  It was an offer she said Tran declined.  McDonald said the domain appeared to be created the day after the June 2015 announcement ITFederal would be the first Royal Phoenix commercial client.  The <itfederal.com> domain lists ITFederal LLC as a subsidiary of VDN Systems, a company founded in 1989.  It lists a McLean address for both companies; one 202 area code phone number for both companies, as well as for “Curt” Tran, who is listed as the sole contact person on the site.  McDonald told Egger the listed phone number was not Tran’s.

During their exchange of October 24, McDonald replied to Egger that ITFederal and VDN Systems were “totally separate LLCs” but did not deny Tran’s involvement in both.

Fifteen months after the EDA urged an immediate loan of $10-million to ITFederal to facilitate construction next door to the EDA’s headquarters, there is little to show for that investment …

What is Cybersquatting? 

According to the online legal site “NOLO”, Cybersquatting is creating an unregistered domain name closely aligned to an existing business trademark name for the sole reason of selling it to the trademark owner for profit.

Two reliefs for such cyber-trademark infringement are described:

1. filing a suit to recover the domain name under the provisions of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA);
2. use of an international arbitration system created by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

The latter is considered faster and less expensive, and does not require the involvement of attorneys.  Winning a financial judgment on the lawsuit path appears possible, but rare.  Control of the domain appears to be the primary outcome for a successful plaintiff, unless damages can be shown to have already occurred to the plaintiff through the unauthorized use of the domain in question.

Citigroup chose the lawsuit path, and appears to now control the <citi.net> domain.  An online search for <citi.net> led directly to <Citi.com> sites advertising Citi Bank services here and abroad.  Two similarly-titled domains, <Citynet.net> and <citinet.co/index>, advertise communications and business system providers, neither related to CITI Bank or Citigroup; nor it would seem, to Truc V. “Curt” Tran or his former business incarnations Computer Information Technology Incorporated or Citigroup Management Corporation.

What’s in a name?

As noted above, “Citigroup” was created by the October 1998 merger of Citibank (Citicorp) and the Travelers Insurance Group.  Citigroup then legally absorbed Citicorp in 2005.  Citigroup’s Complaint traces the company’s use of the “CITI” designation to 1897, when “CITIBANK” was first used to designate “the cable address” of The City Bank of New York, which was incorporated in 1812.  By the 1970s the CITI designation was considered the Bank’s primary identification; and it was federally registered as “Citibank” in December 1981.

Under the Complaint heading “Defendant’s Unlawful Activities” plaintiff Citigroup alleges Tran’s <Citi.net> domain was registered under the name “Citi.net, Inc.” on April 30, 1995, at a P.O. Box 3088, Merrifield, Virginia address.  Citigroup’s attorneys further cite “the administrative and technical contact for the Domain Name is defendant Tran, of Computer Information Technology, Inc., 8150 Leesburg Pike, Suite 400, Vienna, Va.”  Citigroup acknowledged earlier business dealings with Tran and his companies, but did not provide additional detail as part of the initial filing; though its attorneys said that detail would be provided upon request of the Court.

Light at the end of the ‘Superfund’ tunnel?

The EDA has pinned a great deal on Tran and ITFederal LLC.

Well, there are drawings of two buildings, one described as a “Training Academy” – the question remains, training for what and by whom?

After 25 years of federally-overseen environmental cleanup and reclamation, the 147-acre Royal Phoenix site was released for marketing and redevelopment about two years ago.  That release was made by site overseer the Environmental Protection Agency.  As a clean-up partner, and agent of the Town and County, the Front Royal-Warren County EDA is in charge of that marketing and commercial redevelopment effort.

As mentioned in related stories, EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald has credited Congressman Bob Goodlatte with bringing ITFederal to the EDA as “an economic development opportunity” in 2015.  And after a quarter century of work and millions of dollars in federal and private-sector clean-up and remediation funding, the EDA was eager for an “economic development opportunity” to launch commercial redevelopment on a portion of the former 467-acre Avtex Superfund site.

So eager, in fact, that after about three months of negotiations on purchase of a 30-acre parcel it publicly valued at $67,000 per acre ($2,010,000), the EDA agreed to a purchase price of $1 (one dollar, American) for Tran and ITFederal “to begin the process of other buyers,” as then County and EDA attorney Blair Mitchell wrote the EPA in September 2015.  Mitchell’s letter sought release of the ITFed parcel from a $2,060,000 lien on the former Superfund property.  Mitchell’s letter was sent at about the same time the EDA was urging the Town to immediately put $10 million into ITFederal’s hands to begin the process of construction at the site.

Maybe…

So, is there anything to be learned from an eight-year-old “Cybersquatting” lawsuit involving banking and insurance giant Citigroup versus Truc V. “Curt” Tran and some of his various business identities?

Certainly that the ITFederal CEO has not only a rather mysterious and diverse existing and past online presence, but also a cyberspace legal history – a history involving the very type of domain “Cybersquatting” the EDA tells us Tran himself has recently been victimized by.

So?

So, maybe the $10-million dollar “bridge” loan the Town of Front Royal gave Tran in September 2015 to begin construction-related work was a good investment – even if the Town ended up losing an estimated $8,000 in interest over two, one-month extensions of the initial one-month loan; and even if 15 months later far less than $10-million appears to have been spent on site development.

And perhaps building designs presented by ITFederal for its Royal Phoenix property described as a “Training Academy” don’t indicate the company’s plan for Avtex involves marketing to others, as much as building for its own IT solutions business.

And maybe the Citigroup lawsuit against VDN Systems and other Tran business incarnations are unrelated to his current dealings as ITFederal’s CEO; and do not reflect on the viability of the EDA decision to pin its hopes for economic re-development at the Avtex/Royal Phoenix site on a defendant in a 2008 “Cybersquatting” lawsuit.

MAYBE…

Having covered or watched the “Avtex” story evolve since 1989 when it was closed by the State after dumping carcinogens into the water, air and land for a half century, we certainly hope so.