Upcoming UDRP cases -- arcade.com and others

[Dave Zan]

Spreading a little early Christmas joy in the tesla.com proceeding:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/547889.htm

Another feather for your cap...complete with christmas lights! :-D

 

[sasquatch]

Spreading a little early Christmas joy in the tesla.com proceeding:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/547889.htm

That was very illuminating decision :-D

 

[StockDoctor]

Spreading a little early Christmas joy in the tesla.com proceeding:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/547889.htm

Nice job again Mr. Berryhill.

 

[carlton]

Respondent has repeatedly been approached by a variety of parties, including Complainant, proposing to buy the domain name ...

I always find it revealing when "domain hijackers" first offer to buy the name before trying to steal it through UDRP. Panelists should regard prior offers as the complainant's acknowledgement of the current owners right to own. And it should prohibit a hijacker from utilizing UDRP if they ever made a previous offer to buy. That's akin to asking someone if you can borrow $100 from them. And if they say "no", then you just rob them. :wink:

 

[jberryhill]

Panelists should regard prior offers as the complainant's acknowledgement of the current owners right to own.

Indeed, I regularly pick apart those offers and present them as an admission by the complainant of the respondent's rights in the domain name. Why offer to buy something you believe to belong to you by right?

 

[Focus]

I wish we could beat people up for domains..I would learn kung fu and go after the owner of domain.com

- cause I own domain names of course! that gives me the right...duh

 

[Togoodhlth]

Spreading a little early Christmas joy in the tesla.com proceeding:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/547889.htm

Very Nice!

 

[GeorgeK]

wellesleyhotels.com was decided in favour of the complainant!

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1091.html

It turns out there's a chain of hotels called "Wellesley", with a TM. However, if the respondent had made a response, instead of having a default decision, it could have gone the other way, given that Wellesley is the name of a city.

http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/

 

[jberryhill]

it could have gone the other way, given that Wellesley is the name of a city.

As is "Vatican"...

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/583774.htm

 

[GeorgeK]

HockeyCanada.com is a loss for Igal:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1050.html

Seems like a terrible decision to me. The term is very generic, and the TM is a Prohibited One:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0906/trdp090644100e.html

(note the line "Prohibited Mark: Official Mark")

They now complete the set (notice they own the .ca/net/org/biz/info/us).

 

[stuff]

HockeyCanada.com is a loss for Igal:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1050.html

Seems like a terrible decision to me. The term is very generic, and the TM is a Prohibited One:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0906/trdp090644100e.html

(note the line "Prohibited Mark: Official Mark")

They now complete the set (notice they own the .ca/net/org/biz/info/us).

terrible!!
$ 14,600 + lawyer fees

 

[GeorgeK]

I think the arbitrators erred, because only the "Official Mark" holder should have been able to file the UDRP. The complainant in this case didn't have the ability to register their claimed mark.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

There are lots of 3-letter cases. Just go through:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/cases/all.html

At least www.donaldtrump.com now resolves (for a long time, it was an error page, although I wrote their lawyer to mention it).

http://www.trumpworldtower.com/

I hate pages that won't scroll too.

BTW Berryhill, you have a page with a list of the decisions that you represented?

 

[jberryhill]

you have a page with a list of the decisions that you represented?

It's on my to-do list. I don't advertise, and there are some decisions to the effect that posting such lists is an inherently deceptive form of attorney advertising, because the outcome of any particular case depends on its facts, and prospective clients could be misled by such lists.

The funny thing is that if you read cases cited on law firm websites, you'd swear that attorneys never lose.

 

[Jacksplat]

2) hockeycanada.com -- seems generic enough to me, go Igal aka "Mrs Jello"

She lost.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1050.html

I agree with rights to TM for the most part. But in some cases I feel a word is public domain. In this case I have to agree with wipo's findings. When she was served she changed the page. That's tells a story right there. It's too bad someone has to lose money. But most people who spend 20k on a name will check the details first before risking that kind of money. I would think that some of these cases will show people the risk of TM usage for financial gain without having any right to it. I'll pick up the occasional TM, not with the intention of "Sponging" anothers hard work and massive marketing. But because I have a real use for it.

Kevin.

gg HCA

 

[Mr. Deleted]

She lost.

I thought Mrs. Jello is a guy?

http://www.dnforum.com/members/mrsjello.html

 

[Jacksplat]

I thought Mrs. Jello is a guy?

I wouldnt know.

 

[stuff]

I thought Mrs. Jello is a guy?

http://www.dnforum.com/members/mrsjello.html

yes he is.

 

[GeorgeK]

TommyLee.com was a win for the musician:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0915.html

 

[jberryhill]

Carnival Corporation v. Crown solution gaming

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/601111.htm

Complainant’s mark is comprised of common terms, which Respondent appears genuinely to have adopted in good faith for its online gambling business.