- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 19
The Panel finds that offering the disputed domain name for sale on a commercial website in the business of auctioning domain names amounts not only to registration in bad faith but also in use in bad faith,
furthermore
by saying that ââ¬ÅThere is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, as the proprietor of the auction website used by the Respondent advises its potential clients, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent. In several earlier administrative proceedings conducted under the Policy, this sole panelist has determined that offers to sell to the public at large domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others may constitute bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. This is based on the nonexhaustive character of the express list of bad faith factors in paragraph 4(b) of the policy, and the lack of a justification for awarding financial gain to persons for the mere act of registration of the marks of others. In the instant proceeding, respondent has sought to profit from the mere registration of a well-known trademark (preceded by a common descriptive term) as a domain name. There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding that persuades the Panel that Respondent had a purpose for registering the disputed domain name other than for the purpose of selling it for a price in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the name. The Panel determines such registration and use to be in bad faithââ¬Â (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kenneth E. Crews, WIPO Case No. D2000-0580).
tough precendent, this is an interesting case becuase pool was actually called the owner of the name...then the owner said they never paid for it and pool transfered it to them illegally.....
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0359.html
page howe
furthermore
by saying that ââ¬ÅThere is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, as the proprietor of the auction website used by the Respondent advises its potential clients, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent. In several earlier administrative proceedings conducted under the Policy, this sole panelist has determined that offers to sell to the public at large domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others may constitute bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. This is based on the nonexhaustive character of the express list of bad faith factors in paragraph 4(b) of the policy, and the lack of a justification for awarding financial gain to persons for the mere act of registration of the marks of others. In the instant proceeding, respondent has sought to profit from the mere registration of a well-known trademark (preceded by a common descriptive term) as a domain name. There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding that persuades the Panel that Respondent had a purpose for registering the disputed domain name other than for the purpose of selling it for a price in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the name. The Panel determines such registration and use to be in bad faithââ¬Â (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kenneth E. Crews, WIPO Case No. D2000-0580).
tough precendent, this is an interesting case becuase pool was actually called the owner of the name...then the owner said they never paid for it and pool transfered it to them illegally.....
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0359.html
page howe
arty: 
