- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,455
- Reaction score
- 0
Some protection is afforded drop catchers if they quickly develop names that previously were active sites. See this recent case.
Prompt Action Required After Inadvertent Lapse
Complainant allowed its domain name registration for <amarillas.com> to lapse. Complainant claims that it did not receive a renewal notice from Verisign. Respondent subsequently registered the <amarillas.com> domain name and used it for an expansive trilingual business directory of four million companies throughout Latin America, North America and Europe. Respondent chose the <amarillas.com> domain name because "'amarillas' is the plural Spanish word for 'yellow' and is a common or descriptive term for yellow pages or business directories." Thus, Respondent's registration and use of the <amarillas.com> domain name stemmed from a legitimate business decision that "amarillas" has value in the Spanish language relating to Respondent's commercial directory, which services a large Spanish speaking audience. The Panel held that there was a presumption that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the <amarillas.com> domain name because of Complainant's prior registration and subsequent lapse. The Panel, however, determined that Respondent's substantial development and use of the <amarillas.com> domain name evidenced a legitimate business interests in the domain name. One key factor in this dispute was Complainant's failure to promptly notify Respondent of its prior interests and inadvertent lapse in registration before Respondent incurred "substantial expenses in creating a website" at the <amarillas.com> domain name. The Panel also concluded that there was no evidence of bad faith registration and use. Yupi Internet Inc. v. Mercantil Inc., FA 117302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2002).
Prompt Action Required After Inadvertent Lapse
Complainant allowed its domain name registration for <amarillas.com> to lapse. Complainant claims that it did not receive a renewal notice from Verisign. Respondent subsequently registered the <amarillas.com> domain name and used it for an expansive trilingual business directory of four million companies throughout Latin America, North America and Europe. Respondent chose the <amarillas.com> domain name because "'amarillas' is the plural Spanish word for 'yellow' and is a common or descriptive term for yellow pages or business directories." Thus, Respondent's registration and use of the <amarillas.com> domain name stemmed from a legitimate business decision that "amarillas" has value in the Spanish language relating to Respondent's commercial directory, which services a large Spanish speaking audience. The Panel held that there was a presumption that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the <amarillas.com> domain name because of Complainant's prior registration and subsequent lapse. The Panel, however, determined that Respondent's substantial development and use of the <amarillas.com> domain name evidenced a legitimate business interests in the domain name. One key factor in this dispute was Complainant's failure to promptly notify Respondent of its prior interests and inadvertent lapse in registration before Respondent incurred "substantial expenses in creating a website" at the <amarillas.com> domain name. The Panel also concluded that there was no evidence of bad faith registration and use. Yupi Internet Inc. v. Mercantil Inc., FA 117302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2002).
