:: domaining business blog // Domaining for Domainers

Archive for the ‘future media architects’ Category

FMA Wins Domain Dispute for and It’s a Wild One

November 30, 2010Domaining, Domainnamewire, future media architects, Policy & LawComments Off on FMA Wins Domain Dispute for and It’s a Wild One

Domain goes through UDRP for a second time.

Future Media Architects (FMA) has won another UDRP, this time for the generic four character domain name That FMA won is not a surprise, but the history of this domain name and some of the complainant’s accusations make this case more interesting.

Complainant VEDA GmbH actually won a UDRP for back in 2003. But it failed to take ownership of the domain name after it won and FMA bought the domain name instead. VEDA GmbH claims that a former employee made a mistake on the transfer. Yet it waited a stunning seven years before deciding to try to rectify this.

Then, instead of contacting FMA about the matter, it simply filed a UDRP. After FMA called the complainant out on this, the complainant explained:

Complainant did not contact Respondent, because information on the Internet made it clear that Respondent is not a legitimate business entity but merely a commercial domain-grabber who would never have willingly transferred the domain name.

VEDA GmbH, an IT company, said that FMA was trying to take business from it by forwarding to, where FMA allegedly offers web development services. Of course FMA doesn’t actually offer web development services to anyone — FMA has plenty of money and wouldn’t bother developing web sites for other people. The “Web Development” tab on its web site merely shows domain names it has developed.

The complainant then took a jab at FMA’s developed web sites, calling them Potemkin villages.

Ultimately the panel found the domain name wasn’t registered and used in bad faith.

© 2010.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Related posts:

  1. Third Eye Blind Wins Domain Name Dispute
  2. First .Tel UDRP Will Be Important
  3. Are you Kidding .Me? in Domain Dispute

Baby Product Company Wins “Gamble”, Gets 4 Character Domain from FMA

April 1, 2010Domaining, Domainnamewire, future media architects, Policy & Law, udrp, wipoComments Off on Baby Product Company Wins “Gamble”, Gets 4 Character Domain from FMA

Company wins domain name at arbitration.

Lamprecht AG, which sells a line of baby products under the BiBi name, has won the domain name from Future Media Architects through Uniform domain-name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The complainant had lost a case for the domain just a month earlier.

Future Media Architects (FMA) owns over a hundred thousand domain names, but never sells the domain names. It has been subject to a number of UDRP cases but has a winning record. It has successfully defended,, and

Don’t think that this case is over yet — FMA has sued in the past when a panel returned an adverse decision, including for

In this case, FMA argued that the complainant filed the case with the “true intent was to gamble the relatively minimal filing fee in the hope that the Panel would order a transfer of the Domain Name.”

That gamble paid off, assuming there’s no lawsuit.

FMA said it bought the domain name for a number of reasons, one of which was that it’s a four character domain name. But the panelist wrote that a domain registrant still has to do a trademark search on four character domain names, even if they are registering it for the generic attraction:

…The Respondent simply asserted that it registered the Domain Name because of its attractiveness as a four-letter expression.

That is a completely inadequate justification for registering a non-dictionary word without undertaking at least some bona fide enquiry to determine whether a third party trademark might be identical to the domain name. In the Panel’s view, there is no principle that very short alphanumeric strings are per se “fair game” for domain name registrations, without regard to the good faith of the registrant when registering and using the domain name…

…Thirdly, the Domain Name is not one in respect of which it might have been reasonably considered improbable that some third party might hold an identical trademark. The Domain Name consists of two easy-to-say, repeated, syllables, which phonetically might stand for the letters “BB”. In the Panel’s view, the chances of an identical third party trademark being out there somewhere should reasonably have been regarded as quite high, and should certainly not have been disregarded.

© 2009.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Related posts:

  1. Baby Products Company Loses Battle Against Bisexual Web Site
  2. Kevin Ham Wins Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge
  3. BerryHill Gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge Against Italian Company