kivotos-hotel.com - Another stupid decision

[dvdrip]

What is wrong with these people?
kivotos-hotel.com was transferred to the Complainant.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1003.html
I know respondent did not respond but that is no reason to be stupid and act as a butler to the complainant.

It is obvious that respondent has legitimate rights as the domain resolves to a website that is about a hotel in Skiathos Greece with the name kivotos.

The case is simply about two hotels with the same name is different islands. And I am sure there are a handful of hotels with the same name is greece.
Kivotos means Ark.

Also Complainant reveled that there is a court case pending. It is up to the panel to decide is they are going to issue a decision but give me a break...

All these did not bother at all this Luca Barbero clown.

 

[Makis77]

There is also a high class hotel in Mykonos under that name, i used to work at the pool bar when i was a teenager.

http://www.kivotosclubhotel.com/

I wander if they are involved as well.

 

[dvdrip]

They are the Complainant.

 

[Makis77]

They are the Complainant.

I dont want to be mean but they sucked, i quit because they changed the deal after 2 months i ve signed contract.

I cant understand why Luca Barbero decided against the original owner of kivotos-hotel.com

 

[dvdrip]

I just spoke with the webmaster of kivotos-hotel.com.
He told me that they were surprised, didn't know what to do at start.
Then because it was during high season (island hotels make all their money in the summer) they didn't have any time to respond.
I told him they could file for an extension but he didn't know that.

Also he told me that the court case mentioned in the UDRP will favor the respondent.
This was obvious in the hearing. They are waiting for the decision.

So now after this ridiculous decision they are forced to file another court case!
This is simply crazy.

This 20 day response limit is simply ridiculous. It should be at least 45 days for English speaking respondents and maybe 60 days for non-English speakers.
You can simply go on your summer vacations (most people take vacations of up to 30 days), come back, and your domain will be gone.

 

[Theo]

Also, Kivotos.com is Greek-owned, for quite distinct services from the complainant's mark so I wonder if they have the balls to go after that next.

 

[acronym007]

I need to get Greece ASAP!

 

[marcorandazza]

It seems rather bizarre that they went after kivotos-hotel.com, but ignored kivotoshotel.com.

 

[acronym007]

It seems rather bizarre that they went after kivotos-hotel.com, but ignored kivotoshotel.com.

That's what I find most ironic about the whole WIPO process. How can you just pick a name, say pig dot com but not go after the dot net or say you go after pig dot com but not pigs dot com. I understand when someone violates and abuses the TM by diluting the product/brand but often these WIPO's make little sense.

 

[marcorandazza]

Well, this case seems to make sense if you look at what was provided to the Panelist. The complainant had a trademark, the domain name was confusingly similar, and the complainant made out a prima facie case.

I don't feel that badly for the respondent. Had they put up even the slightest resistance - even a letter with a photo of their hotel, they probably would have won. They foolish and chose not to.

If you think the WIPO process is strange, try real litigation. You can rapidly spend $100,000 before you begin getting anywhere. And, if you default in real court, you can lose more than your domain.

I'll keep saying it -- domainers need to stop griping about WIPO and embrace it. It is the domainer's best friend. It has its flaws for both parties, and those flaws could use fixing. Nevertheless, it beats the living crap out of being a defendant in a lawsuit.

 

[Makis77]

Not all people know the wipo procedure, also not everyone checks his email, there is a regular email and phone number contact through the whois so that they could contact him over there.
I hate how these things work, first come first serve and then first complaint and first serve.
Since they are making decisions they should wait for both parties to hand over their statements and not just wipe out the procedure.

The key is that the original owner didnt respond to this complaint.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Thats hillarious! Then greek courts should take this guys business and take him to jail for profits made under trademark services.
I doubt if this happens.

i can no longer edit my previous post...

 

[dvdrip]

It seems rather bizarre that they went after kivotos-hotel.com, but ignored kivotoshotel.com.

They are going after the company as a whole, not just the domain.
And as it seems they will lose in court they chose to harass them using UDRP that is not known to 99% of domain owners.

Well, this case seems to make sense if you look at what was provided to the Panelist. The complainant had a trademark, the domain name was confusingly similar, and the complainant made out a prima facie case.

I don't feel that badly for the respondent. Had they put up even the slightest resistance - even a letter with a photo of their hotel, they probably would have won. They foolish and chose not to.

I'll keep saying it -- domainers need to stop griping about WIPO and embrace it. It is the domainer's best friend. It has its flaws for both parties, and those flaws could use fixing. Nevertheless, it beats the living crap out of being a defendant in a lawsuit.

Slightest resistance? How about slightest effort from the "Panelist"?
That photo of the hotel was on the website of the domain in dispute.

Do you get convicted to a murder just because you didn't show up at court, without the judge looking at all at the evidence?

 

[Theo]

Ah, the good old Greek "dimosio" (public/civil sector) attitude strikes again. Brief description for the uninitiated:

Civil servants must check in by 7am - 7:30am; they are at their spots loosely ("halara") around 8am - 8:30am. First thing to do: check email for latest jokes, latest gossip about politicians who formed offshore companies or who had an affair with a c-class popular singer ("skylou"). Around 9:00am it's time for coffee and cigarette break. Mind you, while smoking is now banned in all public buildings that host such government entities, it's customary to light up in the office, right there at your desk; regardless of the minority non-smoker who thus becomes a habitual second hand chain-smoker!
Meanwhile, the size of the queue for the public use increases; the old men and women discuss politics or simply shove eachother for the clerk window spot "to just ask a question" ("mi sproxnete kyria mou!"). The civil servant sighs, takes a look at the papers and tells them to go to department B, two floors up and buy some process stamps ("hartosima") so that the paper is official. They do that 5 second task per minute while drinking more coffee and browsing the Internet for more gossip, babes or the latest sport news ("kala, eskise o Thrylos xtes!") Time is now right before noon, time to take a bathroom break, usually "number two" ("pao na rikso ena xesimo") and the sign "OCCUPIED" appears at the clerk window. Thirty minutes later, they are back. The queue of people waiting to be services has now doubled and it includes younger people who decided to get to the agency at mid-day ("hallllara megale, siga min pao apo tis 7 to proi"), students, Emo and Goth girls that chew gum and listen to iPods, and the occasional Gypsy mom with a kid in her arms (a rare sight, they usually drag at least 3 with them). The clerk now takes his time as lunch time approaches and manages to take care of one person every 10 minutes (for his 5 second per minute task, that's a great feat). At 1pm it's lunch time: hordes of civil servants abandon their spots and rush to the nearby fast food places or sandwich cafe's for a wrap with chips, a large drink and (you guessed it) a smoke. Forty five minutes to an hour later, back to work (smelling like a NY deli) where the long queue now reaches outside the department entrance. But it's only 90 minutes till the end of the workday! So again they take their sweet time to perform tasks that take seconds, while checking the Internet for movie trailers, download mp3's or chat with the new chick or guy they met at Facebook ("kala, gnorisa mia typissa kai poly moro!") Soon enough, the time to leave comes, while the remaining queue cusses their luck, the politicians and the State for this mess (but they never point the blame finger to themselves). Ah, another day in the Greek public sector has ended. Tomorrow is another day ("aurio, aurio!")

 

[marcorandazza]

Do you get convicted to a murder just because you didn't show up at court, without the judge looking at all at the evidence?

These are not criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings.

I see your point, but this kind of domainer-melodrama does nothing to improve the industry's credibility. Nobody goes to jail. They lose a domain in a proceeding that can't even award attorneys fees.

I agree that the respondent should have won. However, when panelists engage in independent thought and, as a result, rule in favor of a complainant -- these boards go insane about it. Now, you want the panelist to engage in independent thought?

I agree that independent thought is desirable -- but remember that it is a double-edged sword.

In Barbero's defense -- maybe the printout of the site showed a hotel, but that could be any old manufactured pseudo-content. I don't blame the panelist. I blame the respondent.

Ah, the good old Greek "dimosio" (public/civil sector) attitude strikes again. Brief description for the uninitiated:

Great work if you can get it! Now I know where Florida's public servants go for training!

 

[Theo]

Hehe Marc I somehow didn't paint the exact picture of the Greek public sector then. Florida's civil servants do actually work well: post offices, tax collectors etc. My post had more to do with the attitude of procrastination or claiming "no knowledge" of proceedings etc. While I think that this case would have been decided differently if the respondent had actually responded, I believe that they should have done some due diligence as well.

Next up - who will challenge http://kivotos.gr

 

[dvdrip]

Nobody goes to jail? So what?
Imagine you have an online business and some creep takes your domain away because you went on a deserted island for a month. Then you lose your business, they take your home cause you don't have money to pay etc...

Justice is only awarded using independent thought. If independent thought wasn't needed then the NAF secretary would decide cases.

Old manufactured pseudo-content? The website has everything! From photos and panoramas to contact details. It even has an online booking system!!!

I know the Panelist is a lawyer just like you but he is still slime.

I am sorry but UDRP is flawed from the start. Complainant is the one who pays so complainant is always right. Otherwise there will not be business for NAF and WIPO and there won't be any business for you.

I just lost a domain "on the balance of probabilities". What the **** is that?
This is the distortion of all justice systems in the world. If there is any doubt then the accused is innocent. But not in UDRP. Good job panelist. NOT!

These are not criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings.

I see your point, but this kind of domainer-melodrama does nothing to improve the industry's credibility. Nobody goes to jail. They lose a domain in a proceeding that can't even award attorneys fees.

I agree that the respondent should have won. However, when panelists engage in independent thought and, as a result, rule in favor of a complainant -- these boards go insane about it. Now, you want the panelist to engage in independent thought?

I agree that independent thought is desirable -- but remember that it is a double-edged sword.

In Barbero's defense -- maybe the printout of the site showed a hotel, but that could be any old manufactured pseudo-content. I don't blame the panelist. I blame the respondent.



Great work if you can get it! Now I know where Florida's public servants go for training!

 

[Theo]

Why not respond in the usual hotel/bar owner's style: KABOOM!

 

[dvdrip]

Anyway Marc, I don't want to argue with you.
Sorry if I came on too hard but that is how I feel.
I have many friends that are lawyers and most of the times I don't like what they do but I will just not talk about it.

 

[marcorandazza]

Hey, no problem. I take no offense.

I agree that the respondent should have won -- but he also should have raised a defense. I just can't give him a pass on that.

Justice is only awarded using independent thought. If independent thought wasn't needed then the NAF secretary would decide cases

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

Old manufactured pseudo-content? The website has everything! From photos and panoramas to contact details. It even has an online booking system!!!

I agree with this too... but, when the panelist is handed a case, and nobody argues on behalf of the respondent, how is he supposed to know that the site is fully functional? Should he make a reservation?

I just lost a domain "on the balance of probabilities". What the **** is that?

That is precisely how they are supposed to handle these cases. It isn't "beyond a shadow of doubt," nor "beyond a reasonable doubt." You may have gotten hosed in your case, and perhaps you should have won (I dont know what case it is, so I can't say), but ... that is the standard. When you have a limited arbitration system, the panelists must exercise their judgment and balance the probabilities.

The standard you are referring to -- beyond a reasonable doubt - that is the standard in a *criminal* case, not a civil case.

 

[dvdrip]

I agree with this too... but, when the panelist is handed a case, and nobody argues on behalf of the respondent, how is he supposed to know that the site is fully functional? Should he make a reservation?

Ok, I will pass if you can explain this:
"Furthermore, there is no indication before the Panel that the Respondent has made preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Indeed the Respondent is acting in the same field as the Complainant and is using the contested Domain Name for promoting its business."

If respondent has not made any preparations to use the domain name how can the respondent at the same time promote their business using the domain name? And also act in the same field...

This statement alone is enough to kick this ridiculous panelist out of the UDRP panelist list.