Frank Schilling Loses loses generic name on aweful UDRP decision

[intellect]

http://www.domainbits.com/frank-schilling-loses-udrp/#comment-7999
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-1216.html

How can you say "Chilli Beans" are related to eyewear or watches?
Hope he fights to overturn this idiotic decision.

[nameadvertising.com]

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

chillibeans.com registered in bad faith? Folking Haz Holes. Seriously man, these Wipo panelists are either on drugs or making their living by receiving bribes from these corporations.

This is intellectual suicide. Or better - Common sense terrorism.

Shame on WIPO.

[Dorkside]

Troubling decision.

[stewie]

that is crazy...

[bd77]

It seems that over time ads related to the trademark "Chilli Beans" were showing up on Chilibeans.com. They also proved through Alexa's data that most of the traffic the domain was receiving was coming from Brazil. These were the two main reasons the panel awarded Chilli Beans the domain name.

[meganerd]

It seems because of the double L

chili beans is the correct spelling.
"chilli beans" double L name of a shades brand.

[DomainsInc]

Originally Posted by bd77

It seems that over time ads related to the trademark "Chilli Beans" were showing up on Chilibeans.com. They also proved through Alexa's data that most of the traffic the domain was receiving was coming from Brazil. These were the two main reasons the panel awarded Chilli Beans the domain name.

It seems very retarded that the source of traffic played any kind of role. Its not the domain owners fault who ends up there.

[actnow]

Frank is very careful about TM domains.
Plus, he has one of the most knowledgeable lawyer.

Frank is a boy scout compared to many of his peers.
I think he just stepped into it by accident.

As it has been speculated, I would be surprised not to see Frank and John
put up a fight.

They know that once Frank gets the scarlet letter pinned on him,
it is there for a long time.

I speculuate that once John gets back from Australia, he will file
in Northern Va.

We will know more next week.

Frank - Give'm hell !!!

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

Its not the domain owners fault who ends up there.

I would imagine that it is each of our responsibility to ultimately control what the content is.

With that said, it seems the only logical thing would be for the parking companies to have an "opt out" mode.

But, looking at the lander, the content is EXACTLY what I would have expected or suggested...food and recipes.

I don't know about anything previous to that date as it did appear in the archives of 2001.

The complainant's trademark dates to 2000.

That seems to be the primary crutch to the case.

And I hate to say it, but this does not look good for anyone if they made money off of a trademark holder:

The Respondent has made several changes to the ChilliBeans.com landing page since the filing of the Complainant. No longer displayed on the landing page are a number of links of questionable relevance to the domain name that previously were included under the category “popular links”. In addition, a link for “glasses” that previously was displayed immediately below the ChilliBeans.com logo has been removed. Prior to this change, Internet visitors clicking on the “glasses” link were directed to a secondary web page with advertising links to websites selling eyeglasses and sunglasses, and “related links” for eyewear, including eyeglasses and sunglasses, and contact lens. The “glasses” link was removed by the Respondent after it was pointed out in the Complaint. The Complaint also presents traffic data for the ChilliBeans.com website from a search conducted on the Alexa website on August 25, 2008, reflecting that seventy-five percent (75%) of ChilliBeans.com website users come from Brazil.

It appears the complainant had done their homework.

IF the landing page is in complete control and designed by and monitized by Frank's company, then that may be an issue but I personally do not know this to be the case.

If this is a generic lander and search term feeds are automatically placed accordingly, this is very frightening. I do not have the time to personally monitor all my domains 24 hours a day.

[bensd]

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

Its not the domain owners fault who ends up there.

It was his choice to park it. He could of developed the domain.

[PRED]

i would have though 620k results on google of people genuinely thinking thats how its spelled (as i did) would help!

so, you cant park with relevant content, irrelevant content, cant offer for sale, cant develop or you may be passing off a confusingky similar tm etc

basically between icann , wipo and a bunch of lawyers that mostly rub shoulders together and incidentally many of the top lawyers doing this stuff are wipo panel members which in its most fundamental meaning si s a conflict of interest. a 5 year old could tell you that but wipo is a quango thats unregulated.
edit: had a flick thru and saw they were a eyewear manufacturer


i wonder if frank and john on receiving a c and d letter respond or just wait and see if its going all way? would love to know. what u reckon?

[whitebark]

Originally Posted by bensd

It was his choice to park it. He could of developed the domain.

Developing in with any type of advertising feeding off the domain name/content could also have produced the same result.

Like others I don't think chilli is an incorrect spelling in the general sense. It's one of those words in the English language that is so often used that way, it sort has just become an accepted spelling variant.

[jberryhill]

Originally Posted by meganerd

It seems because of the double L

chili beans is the correct spelling.
"chilli beans" double L name of a shades brand.

Check your dictionary.

Stay tuned....

[pcproffenno]

chil·i also chil·e or chil·li (chĭl'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. chil·ies also chil·es or chil·lies

1. The pungent fresh or dried fruit of any of several cultivated varieties of capsicum, used especially as a flavoring in cooking. Also called chili pepper.
2. Chili con carne.

--

Nothing wrong with saying 'chilli'.

[ARMG]

Ridiculous decision... Although I don't think Frank Schilling will have restless nights over this one

[4u-domains]

At first glance this is indeed scary but on a deeper look I believe the complainant had a case worth fighting for and then, as shown, anything can happen. Most of us would not have the means to contest it.

Somebody mentioned "I would imagine that it is each of our responsibility to ultimately control what the content is." which is a good point.
Domains have been lost on much flimsier grounds than this.
Its really only a matter of time when our own domains get attention and parking a domain will always leave us open to 'profiteering' charges. Thats the risk we take and we should expect to possibly lose a small percentage of our names, rightly or wrongly.

Still, there is a reasonable counter claim here as its not an obvious decision.

[Focus]

This sucks.

[gingeman]

Outrageous decision. The spelling of chilli is correct either way. The clincher appears to be an obscure ruling meaning that due to the fact that over time, ads appeared for sunglasses on the page, the defendant prifted from their mark. The ruling seems to be that the defendant cannot plead ignorance to this.

This, in my opinion, is the problem here. If Frank is notified that these ads are on the page by the complainenet, and removes them, as it is shown he has- that should be the end of it imho, or at least, that should remove that element of the case from being relevant.
UDRP panels must come to recognise that large portfolio holders CANNOT, check every domain they own for the ads that they are displaying, especially if they change over time- it is just not practical.

Surely, if a complaint is made on a generic term like this, and the ads are removed- that is demonstration enough that the defendant had no intention to profit from the mark...

I see people now making much more use of new tools in parking allowing you to block ads relating to certain terms.

This is a harsh decision I hope will be overturned.

[jasdon11]

Question for JB; can it be argued as a defence, that a generic domain which has been parked or had been developed in any way, has a valid use prior to the TM? And why isn't parking names (or having minisites with the intention of displaying ads) counted as a valid usage? Many businesses only exist as an advertising medium, why shouldn't domains have the same credibility?

Originally Posted by gingeman

This, in my opinion, is the problem here. If Frank is notified that these ads are on the page by the complainenet, and removes them, as it is shown he has- that should be the end of it imho, or at least, that should remove that element of the case from being relevant.
UDRP panels must come to recognise that large portfolio holders CANNOT, check every domain they own for the ads that they are displaying, especially if they change over time- it is just not practical.

Surely, if a complaint is made on a generic term like this, and the ads are removed- that is demonstration enough that the defendant had no intention to profit from the mark...

Totally agree - especially when the domain was in use prior to the TM. You're not telling me that the TM holders didn't check to see if the .com was taken when they started their business....the domain holder ought to be allowed one warning prior to a full WIPO in cases like this.

[draggar]

Frank fell victim to three strikes:
1) He's a domainer
2) The site is parked - most of the time WIPO sees parked pages as "bad faith"
3) Uncommon spelling for "chili"

Originally Posted by gingeman

This, in my opinion, is the problem here. If Frank is notified that these ads are on the page by the complainenet, and removes them, as it is shown he has- that should be the end of it imho, or at least, that should remove that element of the case from being relevant.
UDRP panels must come to recognise that large portfolio holders CANNOT, check every domain they own for the ads that they are displaying, especially if they change over time- it is just not practical.

While I agree there are two factors:
1) WIPO seems to view changing content (or anything) is an intent to hjide true intentions
2) Some companies don't even bother with C&D or asking them to not display ads. Some will just refresh a parked page for hours just to wait for their one ad to appear to just take a screenshot.

I can't wait to hear John B's response to this. I hope they're fighting back.