Bonafide? Domain Parking and Domain Selling

[namestrands]

This has probably been covered in recent posts, however I am looking to clarify my curiosity on whether domain parking and domain selling constitutes a bonafide interest in a domain name if the domain name is Generic.

I have read in recent decisions:
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/280502.htm

"Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, because the sale of generic domain names constitutes a bona fide offering of goods and services where Respondent is not aware of a party’s rights in a mark. The Panel finds that as a generic domain name reseller, Respondent has rights and legitimate interests, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), in attempting to sell the domain names when it was unaware of any possible rights held by Complainant in similar marks."

Which brings me to my next question, Domain Parking, is this a legitimate use of a domain name. If not why not?

Has the IP world not caught up with the Multi-Billion dollar industry?

Can one argue legitimate offering of services when one parks a domain when the domain offers links to related resources

 

[tinner666]

I honestly don't think so. I think Parking is criminal. It disrupts legitimate enduser purposes.
Yes, I have a few parked. I expect to develop all of them in one way or another. I'm now a criminal too.:disappointed:

 

[namestrands]

Care to elaborate on how parking is criminal is that a generalisation or are you referring to specifics.

 

[tinner666]

Just a generalisation. It seems the net is filling up with useless PPC sites instead of relevant content. Just me, I guess. No offense meant.

 

[namestrands]

Too late.. offence taken as you have categorically called 90% of the members here Criminal.. not really a good start to your membership.

Just a generalisation. It seems the net is filling up with useless PPC sites instead of relevant content. Just me, I guess. No offense meant.

 

[DNQuest.com]

It seems the net is filling up with useless PPC sites instead of relevant content. Just me, I guess. No offense meant.

I agree with this statement, how does that affect my old membership? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jberryhill]

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/96320.htm

The Respondent is using the domain "groceryoutlet.com" for a website that links to online resources for groceries and similar goods. The domain is therefore being used to describe the content of the site. The panel finds that this is a legitimate interest in the domain name.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

You could make a good argument for it.

You could probably make a stronger argument if the domain were developed on a unique site.

 

[katherine]

Too late.. offence taken as you have categorically called 90% of the members here Criminal.. not really a good start to your membership.

Lol and he paid for upgrade to platinum just to tell us that

Well wipo itself admits that parking and selling names is a legitimate activity per se. If you get UDRPed one day I guess they will look at the whole picture and if you have an established pattern of TM infringements for example than this would tip the balance in the favor of the complainant. In such a scenario, the fact that you are parking/selling of domains could then constitute an aggravating circumstance. I am sure it is pretty panelist-dependent though.

 

[tinner666]

:lol: Yup! I'm a criminal! Can't help myself. And a poor excuse for one at that.
But what will the net be like when every site becomes a PPC site? Can you imagine what it would be like? Just us and the advertisers?:?::lol:

Sorry I offended you though. And anybody else too.:blush:

I'll elaborate. I search for things sometimes and I often just type things in and land on PPC pages. So, I know if I click on something, it'll cost somebody something and I might be paying a friend in here for that. Which could be construed as 'back-patting' or whatever it's called to help each other make money.
I have a large mouth that allows me to put both feet in at once!:blush::lol:
I apologize.
Guess I'll be blacklisted now!


To be honest, I've received some great info and helpful replies here. I think it's a great place and the few I've communicated with seem to be really nice.

 

[katherine]

But what will the net be like when every site becomes a PPC site? Can you imagine what it would be like? Just us and the advertisers?:?::lol:

I don't think so. Most good domains will eventually be bought or developed.
It is very simplistic to say that domain speculators are responsible for the scarcity of domain names or high prices. Domains are not overpriced most of the time, they sell for the right amount that is justified by their potential.
Either with or without us the good names would be grabbed by somebody.
I know quite a few fat cat corporations sitting on premium domains and doing nothing with them. At least the domainers sell
Many of us develop too, but it takes time to develop hundreds of names and it doesn't hurt parking in the meantime.

 

[tinner666]

You're right. I did over simplify. And we both know that if I had the money and the domains were there, I'd be grabbing them too.
My thought processes are much deeper than my typing or mouth will ever be able to coordinate with. I've blown many a deal with my mouth, believe me!:blush:
It's my lack of formal education showing through.

 

[DNQuest.com]

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/96320.htm

The Respondent is using the domain "groceryoutlet.com" for a website that links to online resources for groceries and similar goods. The domain is therefore being used to describe the content of the site. The panel finds that this is a legitimate interest in the domain name.

But it is situation specific. A descriptive domain offering what the domain states, no issue there. Would it have been ruled the same way if ebayoutlet.com offered online resources for auction services other than ebay?

I believe there are 2 rules of thought here...

1- Parking descriptive domains with links relevant to the domain (IE- the example John gave)

2- TMed domains which uses links or portals for the sole purpose of collecting PPC or other revenue because of the taffic stolen from the intended object of the search (people looking for the TM product of services).

In example 1, I can see the bona fide offering of services there. It does what it says. In example 2, I do not view it as a bona fide offering of goods and services, it is someone trying to wrongfully profit form stealing traffic.

So when discussing PPC being right or wrong, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[namestrands]

The reason I asked was that surely the size of the domaining industry now (estimated at $4billion) and the amount of money and companies involved, how could domain parking not be bona fide? of course were the domain a complete TM issue then this would not apply.

The registering of domains for sale in my opinion is a bona fide business as long as you do not knowingly infringe upon anyone elses rights.

I would like to see more case law on this matter, so if anyone else knows of any more then please do post.

 

[jberryhill]

There is a lot of case law on these questions, and DNQuest's distillation of the outcome is correct.

There is nothing wrong with domain parking or selling, so long as the value of the traffic and/or the domain is not someone else's goodwill.

 

[Brett Lewis]

I've had several decisions recently where my clients had registered dictionary word domains. In one case, the client used the site as essentially a personal MySpace type of page. The Panel found that not to be enough to establish legitimate rights, because the use was not related to the meaning of the domain name. We won, however, on bad faith. I have had several others recently along similar lines. It's somewhat baffling that registering a dictionary domain name, alone, is not seen as legitimate, if a third party with limited trademark rights files a Complaint.

 

[jberryhill]

The Panel found that not to be enough to establish legitimate rights, because the use was not related to the meaning of the domain name. We won, however, on bad faith. I have had several others recently along similar lines. It's somewhat baffling that registering a dictionary domain name, alone, is not seen as legitimate, if a third party with limited trademark rights files a Complaint.

Doncha just love the double standard there?

If the domain name is not being used for descriptive purposes, it's not legitimate.

But if a mark consists of a dictionary word arbitrarily applied to goods in a non-descriptive manner - it's a strong mark.

I can't remember the decision where the panel "got" that, and realized that an arbitrary, non-infringing association of the domain name was just as legitimate as the mark in question... but it was a rare moment of "it getting".

 

[Theo]

Here's something for you to ponder over, John

Apple is a famous mark and a famous fruit (although I prefer grapes).
So what happens when one uses the same descriptive word (the fruit) in other languages INSTEAD of the mark?

Example: http://milaraki.com is a portal about Apple products in Greece & a fan site of all things Apple. It also means "small apple" in Greek.

 

[namestrands]

would be great to see some case law posting on this forum. Perhaps I could suggest that we have a dedicated posting forum for "Domain Friendly Decisions"

 

[dvdrip]

I think that in many cases panels will not accept that using the domain for ppc will give you legitimate rights but domain selling and domain parking is not evidence of bad faith.
See my case for example:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1425.html