Upcoming UDRP cases -- Lassie.com, azureus.com, knot.com and others

[stuff]

The h5.com case got decided in favour of the Respondent.

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/652832.htm

h5.com for sale for only $8,000? I bet the price goes up after this victory.

Another win for John Berryhill.

is $80k now too much to ask?
Nice one

 

[GeorgeK]

As expected, Air France won antiairfrance.com, again:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0247.html

The ruling seems to be in Korean. But, the final verdict can be seen at:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_id=8699

Maybe this time they'll renew the domain?

 

[domainstrike]

Hey John, out of curiousity .... how are these WIPO proceedings done ? Is it done in-person, and how many people are usually present? Is it usually the same people presiding over it, how long do things like this typically take ? Just curious how these work. Thanks !

 

[jberryhill]

This is the UDRP:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

And these are the rules:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm

There are no in-person proceedings, and it typically takes around 60 days.

 

[GeorgeK]

As expected, tatatel.com was an easy win for Tata:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0285.html

However, one has to say that the panelist really had some ridiculous "logic" in the ruling. For instance:

"The word “TATA” is quite unique and fanciful, and the Complainant’s mark is represented world wide. The Internet based free encyclopedia “wikipedia” refers to the Complainant company group?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group). Although the Complainant has no trademark registration in Panama, which is the location of the Respondent, the Complainant has registered its trademark in various countries as mentioned above under paragraph 4. In addition, the Respondent has not submitted its response. Therefore, the Panel believes that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith."

Since when is a Wikipedia entry a sign of anything? Anyone could go in and create/edit a Wikipedia entry, hardly making it authoritative. Even that entry states "The group takes the name of its founder, Sir Jamshedji Tata, a member of whose family has almost invariably been the chairman of the group." A name that is based on a family surname is hardly "unique" or "fanciful". If it was so "unique" and "fanciful", as the panelist suggests, I wouldn't be able to find pages like the following:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071371

"Tata oasis, southwestern Morocco. Situated in an arid region at the extreme northwestern edge of the Sahara, Tata oasis is located in a canyon watered by three wadis descending from Mount Bani, an outlier of the Anti-Atlas mountains."

Furthermore, the statement "In addition, the Respondent has not submitted its response. Therefore, the Panel believes that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith." Not submitting a response is evidence of nothing, and should not be construed as "bad faith", ugh. Other panelists have been more thorough in Default cases, and even have found against the Complainant.

In conclusion, I agree with the ruling, that Tatatel.com should go to the Complainant (Domaincar is a notorious past loser). But, the panelist should write up a verdict that isn't so sloppy.

---

The hernon.com case got withdrawn:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/caseresults.asp?SearchType=AND&Sort=CaseNo&offset=6200

Since the domain name is now in the hands of Hernon Manufacturing,

http://www.whois.sc/hernon.com

it looks like AshantiPLC coughed up the name. I'd count this as a victory for the complainant, thus bringing me my first bad prognostication in this set of cases, for those keeping score at home. :wink_smile:

 

[terryhealy99]

John, you have mail from me. I need you help

Thanks

Terry

 

[oberheimer]

im getting really worried about tog.com i have to sell quick
im so happy it's not tog.com

 

[GeorgeK]

As expected, VeriSign won freeverisign.com:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0299.html

The case for verisign.name shows as "terminated", and given the WHOIS shows VeriSign as registrant, the prior registrant must have surrendered it.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_id=8794
http://www.directnic.com/whois/?query=verisign.name

 

[wienerdog]

Honestly, cases like knot.com piss me off. Look at any book on trademarks and it says a trademark must not be generic!! knot.com is generic. theknot.com has no case if we lived in a world that abided by it's pre-internet trademark laws. People who care nothing for domain names should still be concerned about the free speech issues of allowing companies to seive common words in the english language as a trademark.

 

[GeorgeK]

The myspcae.com and myspae.com case at NAF got decided in favour of MySpace, not surprisingly:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/664417.htm

What was interesting was the soap opera in the case. It looks like the Respondent had agreed to buy the domains for $50K via Escrow.com. Then, when he learned of the dispute, tried to cancel the escrow, although there's also a statement that they allegedly tried to flip the domains to MySpace for $70K. In the case, the Respondent wants the names transferred to MySpace too, so the panelist didn't go through the formalities of deciding the case using the normal methodology. It'd be interesting to find out whether Escrow.com gave them back the escrowed money, since the complaint was issued to the Respondent using their WHOIS.

 

[GeorgeK]

As expected, savechildren.com went to the Complainant in an easy decision:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0388.html

For absolut.net, the case status has been changed to "Terminated":

http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_id=8890

Since the WHOIS is now in the hands of the vodka maker, it looks like BuyDomains decided to settle, rather than risk an adverse judgement. It would have been an interesting decision, had it been fought (I was expecting a split panel, personally).

The case for elitemodels.com says that there was a decision on May 16th, however it also shows "Case Active". That is odd. There's no published decision yet, and the WHOIS is still in the hands of the Respondent, so we'll have to wait a bit longer to see what's going on.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_id=8754

 

[GeorgeK]

sylviasaint.com was surprisingly LOST by the complainant:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0379.html

Even though it was a default by the respondent, it appears the complaint was sloppy, making the panel need to do too much work. "6.31 In short, the Complainant expects the Panel to investigate too much and speculate too much. It is for the Complainant to prove her case."

They finally published the decision for elitemodels.com (which was later amended to include the .net), and it's a win for the complainant, as expected:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0297.html

The complainants even found the domain mentioned on one of the domain forums (just search for "elitemodels.com" on the main boards):

Complainant states that in a posting on the December 11, 2005, Respondent using the user name “britishbulldog” states that the domain name <elitemodels.com> “was once formally owned by the biggest and oldest model management company in the world who own the domain “elitemodel.com”…but relinquished ‘elitemodels.com.’”

and

Complainant relies on the facts that in Respondent’s posting on December 11, 2005, Respondent using the user name “britishbulldog” states that he owns “a website called ‘elitemodels.com’ just a simple adsense site generating $500 a month mainly through typeins it receives 12000 uniques a month.” Respondent then indicates that he wants to turn the site “into more of a cash machine” and believes that this is possible because the domain “was once formally owned by the biggest and oldest model management company in the world who own the domain <elitemodel.com> but relinquished <elitemodels.com>.”

It turns out that the forum is DNForum!

http://www.dnforum.com/f123/what-should-i-do-thread-124711.html?highlight=elitemodels.com

as mentioned a few times in the decision.

 

[GeorgeK]

As expected, Alberta Hot Rods lost jeffreyarcher.com:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0431.html

Somewhat surprisingly, they made no response, so it was a default judgement. Perhaps they are focusing their resources on the TomCruise.com UDRP, instead??

 

[LizzeyDripping]

Hi Wienerdog - just thought I'd mention this - basically, generic is relative, as I have mentioned in other posts. This seems to be a misconception that pops up a lot.

Preinternet trade mark laws? "Knot" would still not be considered unregistrable unless it was being used as a trade mark for knots - and it would then be unregistrable on the grounds of descriptiveness. And if I chose I could register this as a logo with the word KNOT as a predominant feature of the design, which would negate the argument of pure descriptiveness in trade mark terms (whilst rendering the mark slightly weaker) and use this as a basis for infringement in terms of the domain.

It's never obvious is it? But in most cases it really isn't just as clear cut as saying "this word is generic therefore cannot be a trade mark"... see for e.g. European registration E29124 in Class 9 for FIREWALL...

 

[Dave Zan]

It turns out that the forum is DNForum!

http://www.dnforum.com/f123/what-should-i-do-thread-124711.html?highlight=elitemodels.com

as mentioned a few times in the decision.

In another forum, their legal section is only visible if a user is logged in. Maybe
Adam can do the same thing to the legal section here.

Of course, that won't stop other users from being able to see the domain that
is listed in the other sections of DNF via the SEs.

 

[jberryhill]

In another forum, their legal section is only visible if a user is logged in. Maybe
Adam can do the same thing to the legal section here.

So what, in your mind Dave, prevents registered users from using the search tool here?

Or do you think that all dnforum registered users are here to be your friend?

 

[Dave Zan]

So what, in your mind Dave, prevents registered users from using the search tool here?

No, my post is about possibly preventing SEs from caching the result. Possibly,
anyway. *shrugs*

Or do you think that all dnforum registered users are here to be your friend?

Not at all, John. I ain't that naive.

 

[GeorgeK]

Surprisingly, the tigre.com case went to the complainant:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0378.html

The case is in Portuguese (both parties were Brazilian), so perhaps someone else can explain why.

 

[Dave Zan]

Lassie.com UDRP decision out:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0208.html

Crap, the registrant lost.

 

[GeorgeK]

What's ironic is that if the Respondent for Lassie.com had used the site for porn depicting naked women (i.e. relating to the dictionary definition of the word "lassie", i.e. "a girl or young women who is unmarried", he might have won. Although, he equally might have gone to jail like John Zuccarini for directing children to porn.