Lost www.astonmartin.com.au

[netfleet]

2 weeks ago, not yet signed over.

Bit rough I think after having it for quite a few years.

The fact that it was trademarked wasn't a prob (as we only sold Aston Martins through it)

Came down to not correctly ir sufficiently explaining the relationship between the site and AM. Even though no one in their right mind would believe that this site was owned by AM and we had some disclaimers they apparently weren't enough.

Beware of hotshot lawyers getting you on technicalities like these!

You can see details here if interested... http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/leadr-audrp0906.pdf

Do you think this was a fair decision?

Dave

 

[typist]

Do you think this was a fair decision?

Dave

Dave,

I am sorry to hear that you were disappointed. Thank you for posting the decision; I often find it helpful to read about others' experiences. Having briefly scanned the document, I noticed the following:

1. Proceedings of this nature are not appropriate for the determination of disputes of this nature.
2. ...I was unable to adequately attend to preparation of these reasons due to circumstances which arose after I was appointed and which were beyond the my control.
3. ...the respondent is alleged to have “requested $80,000 compensation"

1) fair enough...
2) maybe not...
3) :whoo: was my thought when I read this. Very unfair if the allegation isn't true. If it is true, the decision doesn't come as a big surprise to me.

Maybe the panelist tries to say that these common "pragmatic" dispute resolution procedures involve trade-offs which makes them less appropriate to resolve complex issues. Questions about fairness and justice, such as yours, always seem complex to me. Looking for clues, I ended up reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Reading your post, I thought maybe you feel it's unfair that the other party gained an advantage because they had more previous knowledge about the procedure and how to present their case? In that case, I think I understand what you think. I like to think it's somehow unfair that I need to pay accountants and tax specialists just to make sure that I don't make any "mistakes" in my tax returns.

What do you think?

 

[DNQuest.com]

To be honest, I think it was ruled correctly by what I read. The panelist did a good job of covereing all the arguements from both sides. The panelist did not beleive the domain was registered with intent to sell to AM. But this came down to the following:

The TM domain was used to further commercial interest (Adsense, PPCs, own commercial venture of privatefleet)

After contacted by a solicitor, the domain owner then decided to try to show bona fide usage when it was nit before contact. (My favorite line... usage, usage, usage.... never rely on planning, planning, planning)

The complainant was able to prove all 3 elemetns of a successful challenge. But it was most interesting to read this line...

iii) [the respondent’s] domain name has been registered or
subsequently used in bad faith.

The "or" is in bold for emphasis.... It should read "and", but the decisions have been interpretting the line as being "or", but this is the first time where I seen "or" being used only. Maybe I haven't been looking close enough, but I will research it.

 

[flybuzz]

did they fine you any fee?

 

[DNQuest.com]

There are no monetary awards in UDRP

 

[netfleet]

Thank you all for your feedback. Nice to have some independent opinions on this one.

The thing is before first contact from AM I had been using the domain and it was pointing towards an AM page on our main website.

I then had very real content (such as you can see at the mo) up for months and months before any proceedings started.

Tpyo, I only mentioned the sum of $80,000 after multiple harassing phone calls from lawyers trying to get a number out of me for compensation! Thankfully the panel recognised this to some extent and so this alone didn't damage our case.

The thing that lost it for us was as you said. DNQuest.com, they were able to prove bad faith which usually means proving one of the following:

“(i)circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or[the respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for thepurpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domainname registration to another person for valuable consideration inexcess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costsdirectly related to the domain name; or

(ii)[the respondent has] registered the domain name in order toprevent the owner of a name, trademark or service mark fromreflecting that name or mark in a corresponding domain name; or

(iii)[the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for thepurpose of disrupting the business or activities of another person;or

(iv)by using the domain name, [the respondent has] have intentionallyattempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to awebsite or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's name or mark as to the source,sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.”

In the event they effectively proved (iv) which is something I still reject to this day. For what it's worth we have never tried to suggest any relationship or endorsement with AM... it's just our disclaimers weren't comprehensive enough.

At least it was a valuable learning exercise.

Flybuzz, no fine thankfully but we'll still lose considerable revenue in the years to come from traffic from that site including potential car buyers.

Thanks all again for your anaylsis!

Cheers

Dave

 

[DNQuest.com]

TMs. in its' lowest common denomenator:

If you make any revenue from a TMed domain you do not own or have explicit authority to use, it will be considered bad faith (that includes promoting other "companies", adsense, links. etc).

It is a very hard leason to learn, but look at it this way... They didn't try to recover all your revenue, pay for thier lawyers, punitive damages...

 

[erdinc]

Isn't this case contradictory with BruceSpringsteen.com case? The owner of that domain was directing the traffic to his other site. He had 1500 domains and he was a traffic expert, so to say. But he kept the domain.

 

[interactx]

yeh, we just lost 360harleydavidson.com and three others much like it with hyphens. we really did get intimidated by the legal stuff and offered some pretty good arguments, but lost it. oh well, live and learn.