If it ain’t completely broke, don’t risk breaking it.
Yesterday I wrote about how World Intellectual Property Forum and National Arbitration Forum are opposed to initiating a UDRP reform effort at WIPO.
They aren’t the only ones in this camp.
Prominent UDRP defense attorneys John Berryhill and Ari Goldberger also spoke on yesterday’s “State of the UDRP” webinar. And both of them are opposed to an overhaul of UDRP.
This is an interesting dynamic. The UDRP providers think that intellectual property interests won’t be adequately represented in a reform effort while domain attorneys probably think the opposite.
I tend to agree with Berryhill and Goldberger: UDRP will become more lopsided if a reform effort is started. Basically the IP interests would lobby the Governmental Advisory Committee, which would pressure ICANN into giving the IP interests what they want.
Indeed, I’m very afraid of UDRP reform.
Not everyone on the domain owner side is in this camp. Internet Commerce Association is pushing for reform with the backing of some of its large supporters.
Let me be clear: UDRP has many flaws and could use some reform. It’s just interesting that both sides are concerned about the outcome.
© DomainNameWire.com 2011.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- Incumbents Opposed to UDRP Reform
- Be Very Afraid of UDRP Reform
- WIPO to Offer Fast Track UDRP Without ICANN Approval?
3DCafe, Inc. found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
A three person National Arbitration Forum panel has called out 3DCafe, Inc. for attempted reverse domain name hijacking in a case over 3DCafe.com.
The complainant argued that it had rights from its “predecessor in interest” for the term 3DCafe dating back to 1991. But the domain name owner, with the help of attorney Ari Goldberger, poked holes in the complainant’s arguments.
The panel determined that 3DCafe, Inc. and its lawyer Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould had provided scant evidence of any sort of common law rights to the mark when the domain name was registered. While not invoking the doctrine of laches, the panel also cited New York Times Co. v. Name Administration Inc. and the significant delay between when the domain was registered and when the case was filed.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:
In the present circumstances, the lack of a trademark, the delay by the Complainant and the fact that the Complainant itself showed no evidence of any right to any common law rights to a mark, all combine to infer that the Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
© DomainNameWire.com 2010.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- California ISP Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
- BerryHill Gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge Against Italian Company
- Kevin Ham Wins Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge
Company goes after domain name registered several years before it created its brand.
Nat Cohen’s Telepathy, Inc. has successfully won a charge of reverse domain name hijacking against X6D Limited, which owns the XPAND brand of 3-D glasses.
X6D filed the complaint over the domain name xpand.com. Telepathy, represented by domain name attorney Ari Goldberger, noted that it’s common to eliminate the ‘e’ in words that start with ‘ex’. The panel agreed, arguing that xpand was a single descriptive word:
The Panel considers the disputed domain name contains at its second level a single descriptive term. Many English words starting with “ex“ are commonly misspelled by omitting the “e” at the beginning, inter alia, “xtreme” (misspelling of “extreme”), “xchange” (misspelling of “xchange”), “xcess” (misspelling of “excess), “xact” (misspelling of “exact”), “xcel” (misspelling of “excel”), and so forth. In the Panel’s assessment, the public readily identifies the misspelled word in these cases.
The panel also agreed that buying descriptive and generic domain names as an investment is a legitimate use of a domain name:
Due to the commercial value of descriptive or generic domain names it has become a business model to register and sell such domain names to the highest potential bidder. Such a practice – including the sale of the domain name – has been found to constitute use of the domain name concerned in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services provided that the registration of the domain name was not undertaken with intent to profit from or otherwise abuse a complainant’s trademark rights.
All of this is well and good, but the real crux of the case came down to dates. Telepathy registered the domain name in 2003, three years before X6D says it started using the XPAND brand. Thus, it’s impossible that the domain name was registered in bad faith targeting X6D. X6D offered $10,000 to buy the domain name. When that failed, it filed the UDRP.
This helped Telepathy win a charge of reverse domain name hijacking:
In the present case, the Complainant did not provide any explanation as to how the Respondent could possibly have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name, which occurred more than three years before the Complainant started using its XpanD Mark. The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.
© DomainNameWire.com 2010.
Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.
Related posts:
- BerryHill Gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge Against Italian Company
- PokerHost.net Owner Wins Reverse Domain Hijacking Charge
- Kevin Ham Wins Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge