Getting back to the actual case in question - which must be more corrupt than most:
The British Airport Authority (BAA) has been making potentially fraudulent and libelous allegations.
Using somewhat devious means, BAA have falsely accused Bob Larkin of infringing upon what they claim to be 'their' trademark.
This is despite the absolute facts that BAA has not registered the trademark in question, the word is geographical place name used by other businesses and Bob was not working in same goods and services as BAA.
I believe BAA lawyers should have advised them they cannot legally prevent all other businesses from using geographic word in different goods or services - however, BAA lawyers may be thinking of their money.
Bob contacted several people about his 'problem' - he was keen to prove himself innocent of these false charges.
Here is edited version of my reply:
I would be most annoyed in your position - after all, have you not been libelled by BAA - being called a cybersquatter?
Should case be found against you, WIPO will corroborate this defamation - which could be used in future complaints against you.
These people at BAA seem most unscrupulous as any we have seen.
Gatwick Fusion Limited have registered the trademark word "Gatwick" - why not the BAA?
Strategic Rail Authority have registered the 'stylised' trademark "GATWICK EXPRESS"
(stylised means a word presented other than in a regular typeface).
Gatwick Airport Limited registered trademark words "GATWICK AIRPORTER"
Which it seems they only got "because of distinctiveness acquired through use".
However, BAA Enterprises Limited did register the 'device & word' "Gatwick Parking"
(device & word is a mark consists of a pictorial representation together with a word element).
Is the reason why BAA has not registered the trademark word "Gatwick" possibly because the Patent Office would not allow it?
Perhaps BAA hope to register it "because of distinctiveness acquired through use" - stopping others using it in business (like you).
Incidentally, the word "Gatwick" was once registered with USPTO as trademark by New York company for men's and women's suits,
sportcoats, trousers & skirts.
If BAA went to a court of law, with an unregistered trademark for the geographic word "Gatwick", does this allow them to legally prevent others from using the same geographic word in different goods or services?
I think not - as you know, this is called overreach.
...
As to UDRP three tests:
1. Similar name: Other businesses also legally use the word "Gatwick" - and so would be telling a lie to claim exclusivity of use. You are no more infringing upon BAA as any other business.
2. Respondent has intellectual property rights: You had the first idea to register the generic domain Gatwick.com for business use. Providing you use it lawfully (including not infringing upon trademarks) - it is your intellectual property to do with as you will. You can use it for any type of business you like or sell it for such a purpose.
This test puts onus on respondent to prove 'innocence' or "defend itself against the allegations" as WIPO so put it - without the trademark holder having to prove infringement of their mark - and so highlighting the corrupt biased nature of WIPO UDRP.
UN WIPO and all lawyers know that (whether civil or criminal) complainant (or prosecution) has burden of proving case.
[Yet WIPO complainant does not have to prove his case - the five factors examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION]
3. Bad faith: The artificially provoked agreement to rent domain to third party after being pressed to sell. They abet the breaking of rules - isn't this called entrapment?
Their argument is false anyway - you were using domain as business directory before they pressed you to sell - not infringing upon BAA. You are perfectly legally entitled to sell your domain.
It is overreach for BAA to prevent others conducting lawful business that do not infringe upon them. So - how exactly were you infringing upon BAA?
By the way - if UDRP rules state that a dictionary word domain used by other businesses cannot be offered for sale to a trademark holder (as it may be considered 'Bad faith') - yet you can offer these dictionary words to others - isn't that a stupid state of affairs?
...
This is all my true informed opinion - obviously check with a lawyer before using any of it.
Bring it on BAA!
