Membership is FREE, giving all registered users unlimited access to every DNForum feature, resource, and tool! Optional membership upgrades unlock exclusive benefits like profile signatures with links, banner placements, appearances in the weekly newsletter, and much more - customized to your membership level!
Sedo - Global Domain Report Survey 2025

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 70408

Guest
I can't say that I am too suprised considering the fact that he used it as a "Lassie-related" site in 2000. I guess if he had just kept it parked while his economic conditions precluded him from working on his project, he would have been fine.
 

dtobias

Level 6
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
590
Reaction score
1
I agree that the mbf.com decision is a bad one (MBF, for Mercedes Benz Finance, is an unregistered, weak trademark, being a three-letter initialism that is not one of the few famous ones like IBM and AOL). It seems like a case where the panel regarded the respondent as "sleazy" because they'd been registering lots of domains without a coherent purpose for registering particular names.

There doesn't seem to be any clear standard of whether and when an independent "fan site" is considered a legitimate user of a name of some entertainment personality, character, etc. Are they always illegitimate (as the panel in the Lassie case seemed to think), or are they sometimes legitimate, like if it's a purely noncommercial fan site? (But it's hard for a site to be considered purely noncommercial, since even hobby sites often have Google ads, etc.)
 

jberryhill

Philadelphia Lawyer
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
12
knot.com -- this is an old domain, registered since March 1996. It's now parked at DomainSponsor, with keywords in the "wedding" space, just like The Knot, who is presumably the complainant. TheKnot.com was first registered in June 1996, so they have an uphill fight, because it's hard to make the argument that the domain name was "registered in bad faith" when knot.com was registered 3 months BEFORE theknot.com, especially if one applies the "successor in interest" argument as in Voyuer.com, as mentioned above with Azureus.com (knot.com has changed hands several times, if one views the WHOIS history). Given the fame of the complainant, though, I predict the UDRP panel will bend over backwards, and give them the victory, despite other precedents that should say otherwise.

...an accurate summary of the issues discussed in the case.

2 for 3 on your original list.

Time for a re-deal, George.
 

Dave Zan

Level 8
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,700
Reaction score
10
The panelist's name in the mbf decision appears to be Korean. How ironic.
 

Salient

DNF Member
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
549
Reaction score
0
The knot.com decision blows me away.

Listen people, regardless of your intentions when purchasing and developing a domain, be prepared to have it stolen legally from underneath you.

How exactly did the complainant "prove" the respondent purchased the domain name in bad faith? The explanation of the respondent claimed to purchase the domain to have a generic dictionary word and should have used it for knots; like types of knots made with ropes and strings...

Ridculous.

I think there are some nefarious activities happening with these boards.
 

GeorgeK

Leap.com
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
69
The silviasaint.com case was decided in favour of the porn actress, as expected (and unlike the sylviasaint.com case):

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0399.html

Panelists don't have an easy job....

However, it is consensus view among Panelists that a panel may visit the Internet site linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the Respondent and the use of the domain name and that the panel may also undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it feels that it needs that assistance in reaching a decision. ....

The Panel has visited the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to verify Complainant’s allegation. The Panel’s visit on this website has revealed that, indeed, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website offering for sale adult entertainment DVDs and thus capitalizes on Complainant’s mark in her stage name “Silvia Saint”.

Getting paid to surf porn --- tough job indeed! :typing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who has viewed this thread (Total: 1) View details

Who has watched this thread (Total: 5) View details

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Members Online

IT.com

Premium Members

Upcoming events

Our Mods' Businesses

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom