Octopus.com

[namestrands]

This sort of ruling really does not bode well.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0417

 

[katherine]

Ruling released today, we could see it coming really.
This case has it all, blurred ownership, fake whois, cyberflying.
This is the perfect example of WHAT not to do when you hold valuable domain assets

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0417

Ouch :disappointed:

 

[Gerry]

Horrible, horrible decision.

This is when it is time to take this to an actual court of law.


However, using an alias certainly is not the way to go about domaining. It is a violation of ICANN rules and TOS to have fake or non-factual information.

 

[silentg]

One dumb owner. This domain was listed on Flippa as well.

 

[silentg]

Google search for the term "octopus" shows this result for the octopus.com domain:

Octopus - travel methods and great deal of other information.
Information on the family Octopoda, including locomotion, anatomy, species and cephalopod

And there are affiliate ads for hotel booking.

 

[namestrands]

Unfortunately, these sort of results are becoming more and more the norm. The UDRP system is Flawed, Panelists are more likely to be requested by those paying for it, and therefore it is in their interest to be ANTI-domainer. What is clear, the trademark holders are well represented at the WIPO as the panelists are connected to the legal profession from what I have seen. There needs to be equal representation for the domain industry.

The facts should speak for themselves, this was nothing short of domain hijacking.

 

[draggar]

However, using an alias certainly is not the way to go about domaining. It is a violation of ICANN rules and TOS to have fake or non-factual information.

I'm willing to bet this was a significant factor.

But - the respondent kinda went into their field by having travel related ads (this is why it's important to filter your ads!!). They also tried to avoid the legal aspect by moving it to a place that would be out of Octopus Travel's jurisdiction.

While borderline, the respondent could have avoided it all by staying away from the TM aspect of the word (a site about octopi, which is what she had - but the ads were relevant to travel) and not violating ICANN policies (fake WhoIs etc..).

The lesson? Watch your ads and use WhoIs privacy if you want your identity protected.

 

[Gerry]

Unfortunately, these sort of results are becoming more and more the norm. The UDRP system is Flawed, Panelists are more likely to be requested by those paying for it, and therefore it is in their interest to be ANTI-domainer. What is clear, the trademark holders are well represented at the WIPO as the panelists are connected to the legal profession from what I have seen. There needs to be equal representation for the domain industry.

The facts should speak for themselves, this was nothing short of domain hijacking.

I do not understand why someone, rather than respond to a WIPO or UDRP, simply files a counter-suit in an actual court of law.

Why waste time fighting this to a panelists of nitwits, paying legal fees to represent you, losing a case, and then paying more to appeal it. No matter what, even if you have to respond to a WIPO, file a claim in your own court system.

I say go to a local attorney and file an action within your jurisdiction for attempting to defraud or attempted theft of intellectual property. This will force the complainant to respond to an actual legal court of law and PROVE they have the rights. No matter what the outcome of the WIPO or URDP, you have upped the stakes. I would not at all be surprised to see some complainants withdraw their WIPO complaint.

Granted, some names are not worth it. But this is about as generic as generic gets.

 

[Ulysses]

This stinks!
Makes me so very, very angry!

 

[namestrands]

Last year we were approached by a company looking to purchase a domain name from us, and it was generic in every sense of the word. The company also filed a trademark 3 years after we acquired the domain name. We responded with a 5 figure (Fair) Price considering. (At this time we did not know the identity of the company). They then responded claiming that we were not using the domain and as they had rights to it we were "Cybersquatting" (Bearing in mind the company only started 8 months prior to the email)

Long story short, we heard nothing more about it. Until we started noticing that specific ads started to be targeted on our site and only our site, thankfully we managed to disapprove that advertiser using google's ad review center. A couple weeks later we were contact by the clients legal counsel with a cease and desist letter which included references to those same specific ads and screenshots from a URLFORWARDED domainsponsor landing page with search results including the complainants name, thankfully the URL of the page was at the bottom and it was the results of a specific search for that complainants products using the search function.

It goes to show as to what lengths these companies will go, and lying and cheating seems to be common place. Thankfully I called them out on it, and had enough evidence to blow their whole case out of the water, and perhaps would have exposed them to seriously negative press. Once presented to their lawyers I heard nothing more from them.

Some are not as lucky.

 

[Onward]

There are a lot of things troubling with the ruling, but if you read it...this is a good read as to what not to do with a generic domain name...

The Respondent:

1. Hid her identity
2. Was a former employee of the Complainant (not in itself bad...but if you do #3 - Bad)
3. Offered advertising to the complainants direct competitors.
4. Offered to sell the domain to Comp (although not clear to me who approached first)

 

[namestrands]

Was point 2 not referring to a previous ruling?

 

[james2002]

One dumb owner. This domain was listed on Flippa as well.

I was thinking to buy even at a good xx,xxx but the seller told me not to make offer unless it was in high xx,xxx to xxx,xxx.

 

[katherine]

we started noticing that specific ads started to be targeted on our site and only our site, thankfully we managed to disapprove that advertiser using google's ad review center. A couple weeks later we were contact by the clients legal counsel with a cease and desist letter which included references to those same specific ads and screenshots from a URLFORWARDED domainsponsor landing page with search results including the complainants name, thankfully the URL of the page was at the bottom and it was the results of a specific search for that complainants products using the search function.

These people are scum but they are not the first to resort to such manipulations:

From pig.com dispute:
"Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have its advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word “pig.” Complainant caused the display of its own ad on the Respondent’s website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent."
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/843597.htm
(Thanks to JBH for the tip)


When you have a valuable domain name the best defense is bona fide use of the domain to establish rights.
Now in the particular case of octopus, if you look at the archived pages, the minisite wasn't kosher in terms of contents (pages about octopi and pages about travel). Panelists are not dumb: if you set up a non-convincing website to pretend legitimate use and dodge trademark violation issues they will still find bad faith.

 

[copper]

The domain, octopus.com is as generic as any domain can be, but using such site title :uhoh:
It's site title says...
Octopus - travel methods and great deal of other information.

 

[Vincent]

Other octopus sites also involve traveling: octopus.co , octopus.net .
Why doesn't octopus travel go after these owner. I guess it likes .com first over the other two.

 

[Theo]

Octopus comes from the Greek "οκτώ" and "πούς" - eight and foot, respectively. It's a generic, but it was used in a manner infringing the rights of the travel agency. In that sense, http://Apple.gr is safe until they start displaying iPod ads.

 

[bmugford]

“Octopus” is a generic dictionary word, and there are countless companies using it for branding reasons.
The recourse should be in actual court where common sense prevails and not in some kangaroo court (UDRP).
The whole process needs to be revamped. Right now it is a cheap lottery ticket to acquire a premium domain.


I also fail to see how the complainant could prove “No legitimate reason to own the domain”, as this is a generic keyword .COM
I hope a court steps in an blocks this ridiculous decision.


Turning over property because of a questionable use is highly problematic IMO. Many of these uses are best determined by a court, not some panel with the right to seize property with no real due process.
UDRP was designed for obvious TM infringing names, not 25+ year old generic Keyword.com


Brad

 

[axeman]

There are a lot of things troubling with the ruling, but if you read it...this is a good read as to what not to do with a generic domain name...

The Respondent:

1. Hid her identity
2. Was a former employee of the Complainant (not in itself bad...but if you do #3 - Bad)
3. Offered advertising to the complainants direct competitors.
4. Offered to sell the domain to Comp (although not clear to me who approached first)

I can only come to the conclusion that the ruling was correct, kicked a free goal for the complainant.

Its pretty clear that if you want to lose your domain through this process this is how you do it, should be a firm warning to others.

 

[Seraphim]

Did octopus.com's owner attempt to sell the domain without notifying potential buyers that it was / is involved in a legal dispute?