UDRP Archives | DomainInvesting.com
101 Domain

UDRP

RDNH Finding in ALO.com UDRP

0

A three member WIPO UDRP panel ruled in favor of the domain owner in the ALO.com UDRP. In addition, the panel ruled that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) occurred. The domain name owner was represented by ESQWire.com (Jason Schaeffer and Ari Goldberger), and this is the second case in the last couple of weeks for the law firm where a finding of RDNH was made.

This seems like a pretty cut and dry UDRP decision. It doesn't really make sense that a complainant can win a UDRP when the domain name has been owned longer than the trademark of the company filing the UDRP even existed. In its argument, the complainant cited the "Octogen Case," which was just discussed in a sponsored post the Internet Commerce Association wrote published on CircleID. Putting the theory of "retroactive bad faith" to rest is important for domain name investors.

I think there are several aspects of the UDRP decision that stand out for domain investor rights, and I want to highlight a few of them. (more…) → Read More


JDM.com Subject of UDRP

6



A UDRP has been filed against the JDM.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The UDRP filing is case #D2017-1182.

JDM.com has a creation date of April 1995, making this domain name 22 years old. The domain name is earning advertising revenue via its Uniregistry parked page. As far as I am concerned (and as many UDRP panels have ruled), this is a legitimate business practice. Based on a DomainTools Whois History search (and article written by Jamie Zoch), it looks like the domain name may have recently changed registrants.

As a three letter .com domain name, JDM.com holds significant value. According to Estibot, the value of JDM.com is listed as $118,000, and I would not be surprised to see a domain name like this sell for somewhere in that ballpark or higher. I do to see any public sales information about JDM.com in NameBio.

The complainant in this UDRP proceeding is listed as J.D.M. Sofware B.V. (I think this is a WIPO typo and the correct company name is J.D.M. Software B.V.). A Google → Read More


RDNH Finding on MagicPlan.com UDRP

0

A UDRP was filed earlier this year against the MagicPlan.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum, and the decision was published this morning. The UDRP was defended by Ari Goldberger and Jason Schaeffer of ESQWire.com on behalf of the domain owner. In addition to winning the UDRP, the three member panel found that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The first bit of good language for domain investors that was published in the decision came in the "Rights or Legitimate Interests" section. This discussion centered around the respondent's business model as a domain investor, and it cited quite a few examples of similar types of domain names owned by the registrant in showing that the complainant's business was not targeted. This section also referenced other UDRP decisions acknowledging that domain investing is a legitimate business. Here is an excerpt from this section:

"A respondent may register and use a domain name to attract internet traffic based upon the appeal of a commonly used descriptive → Read More


NameFind Will Retain Fabricator.com After UDRP Win

2

Fabricators & Manufacturers Association, International filed a UDRP against Fabricator.com at the National Arbitration Forum. Until the decision was published on the NAF website, I was not sure who filed the UDRP given the generic nature of the "Fabricator" term. The domain name is owned by GoDaddy's NameFind, and the company was represented by attorney Gerald M. Levine of Levine Samuel, LLP.

This morning, the NAF published the UDRP decision. The panel (only one panelist) ruled in favor of the domain name owner, so NameFind will retain the domain name and be able to sell it.

In order to prove its case, the complainant needs to prove that (paraphrased) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the complainant has rights and legitimate interests in the name, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. In this particular case, the panelist ruled in favor of the domain owner on one element, so he did not feel the need to rule on the other aspects of the UDRP.

Here is the section of the → Read More


RDNH Finding in Novelist.com UDRP Decision

0

The Novelist.com UDRP was decided and published on the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) website. The decision went in favor of the owner of the domain name, WebMagic. The panel also concluded that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Domain attorney John Berryhill represented the domain owner in this UDRP.

The complainant in this UDRP turned out to be EBSCO Industries, Inc., which operates a website called NoveList. Because the UDRP was filed at the NAF, the complainant was not publicly revealed until the decision was published.

With any UDRP proceeding, the complainant needs to prove three things (paraphrased): the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the complainant has rights and legitimate interests in the name, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Although the panel concluded the complainant proved the first aspect, the panel concluded that the domain owner has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Here's how the panel ruled on that aspect: → Read More


RDNH Finding in AirZone.com UDRP

1

Nat Cohen's Telepathy won a UDRP that was filed against AirZone.com, a domain name the company registered in 1999. The three member panel also found that the complaint to be Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The UDRP was defended by domain attorney Zak Muscovitch of DNAttorney.com.

There were several factors that contributed to the decision. Among the factors that stood out the most for me:


  • Telepathy registered several (keyword)Zone.com domain names on the same day and at around the same time, showing that the company didn't target the complainant.

  • Telepathy owns a variety of generic domain names, such as this one, which are owned legitimately and without the purpose of infringing on the trademarks of other companies.

  • Complainant made an offer to buy the domain name

  • There were several purchase offers from a variety of companies, which showed that there are many entities that could use the domain name and that the complainant's brand wasn't targeted by the owner.

  • Complainant filed the UDRP 12 years after submitting → Read More


« Older Entries