Camper.us Decision goes to Cpmplainant

[trickjohn]

Courtesy of Snapnames email Newsletter:

Camper.us Decision


Seems like another poor decision to give an extremely generic domain to a large company just because it has more money than the "little guy."

Complainant could prove neither bad faith, nor first use, yet still won this decision.

Saddening.

 

[RON2]

Wow, I hope I never get Sandra Franklin as a panelist.

 

[jberryhill]

No doubt, the camper.us decision is a landmark among bad UDRP decisions.

What is amazing is that she seemed to make a big deal out of the fact that the registrant was a Dutch company, and had a non-English webpage for advertising camper rentals to tourists visiting the US.

On the other hand, I guess she is not aware that people from outside of the US do not all speak English, but may be interested in renting campers, and the complainant was from Spain. Maybe she thinks Spain is in the US.

 

[Kjel]

As Patrick at UDRPlaw.net points out, the .us Dispute Resolution Policy puts a lower burden on the complaintant than the UDRP: they only need to demonstrate that the name at issue was either registered OR used in bad faith, instead of registered AND used in bad faith as required by the UDRP. Even so, I don't see either here.

This decision doesn't seem to make make sense to me either -- part of the reason it made it in the newsletter

Mr. Berryhill's description of the thought process behind it makes as much sense as anything

 

[bidawinner]

I wanted to rush to judgement on here decison but decide to review here earler decisons first..

The trend seems to be that she has at least in the past shown a sense of fairness according to the outlined "rules" she must follow....



http://www.arbitration-forum.com/domains/decisions/117871.htm


Here are some more of her decisions..


http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/97722.htm

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/110786.htm

I am not familiar with "Camper" but what bothers me more than whether or not this generic word is also a well known trademark.. is that neither country is from the >US<

I would like to see Companies based in the US first rights to .US domains .. That should be the outline for all CCtlds in MY view.

Perhaps what we need is an International domain.. one specifiaclly for Companies the exhibte proof that they do business arouind the globe..

Take McDonalds (the hamburgers Ma that is)for example.. they need (those types of companies)an international domain..

so if I live in italy and run a fishing company called "McCdonalds" that I would have first rights to "McDonalds.It" etc...

How you can can be base in spain and ambsterdam and some how claim TM on first a generic word and 2nd on a .US domain is incredible..but I Sandra Franklin was simply going by rules/policy that she was given.. the policy is what needs changing IMO..

 

[trickjohn]

Originally posted by bidawinner
Perhaps what we need is an International domain.. one specifiaclly for Companies the exhibte proof that they do business arouind the globe..

Take McDonalds (the hamburgers Ma that is)for example.. they need (those types of companies)an international domain..

so if I live in italy and run a fishing company called "McCdonalds" that I would have first rights to "McDonalds.It" etc...

We already do have such a TLD. It's called DOT COM.

 

[LawyerSturgeon]

I recently won a case against the Bell Telephone Companies (the "baby bells") regarding the domain name eBell.com. The decision states that

"no one has exclusive rights to common descriptive terms used in their generic sense"

In other words, although a huge company may have a trademark, a little guy can still win.

The decision in the case is here http://www.domain-name-dispute-lawyers.com/eBell Decision Domain Name Dispute Lawyers.htm

A news article about the case is here
http://www.domain-name-dispute-lawyers.com/Domain Name Dispute News Articles.htm

Good luck.

Stephen H. Sturgeon, Esq
DomainEsq.com

 

[fizz]

Stephen, your victories in domain battles are very reassuring to those at risk of reverse-cybersquatting attempts on their generic names. Thanks for sharing

 

[AMERICAR]

I dont know where you all get the idea that the UDRP is the be all and end all of everthing .. when it comes to TM disputes or decisions.

Large Multi National companies will just go straight to court and not even bother with UDRP .. they dont care what it costs .. and they especially dont care what it cost the defendent .. the more the better as far as they are concerned.

See this thread : http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?postid=69519#post69519

.

 

[pljones]

Thanks for citing to my article from UDRPlaw.net. The Camper.us decision is about as bad as I've seen in a while. I'd like to see panelists look at the usDRP as more of a separate dispute policy than simply UDRP without use in bad faith. Panelists- draft some cases that stand on their own, rather than referring to bad (or good) "precedent" from the UDRP.