Why would this domain NOT be considered cybersquatting?

[BobDiGiTaL]

The name is "DaveandAdamsCardWorld.com "
They may be the largest card seller in volume on the internet.

Can someone explain this decision to me in plain English?

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/977209.htm

[Banned: theinvestor]

The “mere claim of use is not enough to establish rights.

I think that tells it all.....

[Acro]

Enforcing "common law" trademarks is not easy.

[Gerry]

strange decision.

[jberryhill]

The complainant apparently did not present evidence of the use of "Dave and Adam's Card World" as a trademark.

I might run a corporation called XYZ Corp. and I might sell "DEF" brand greeting cards. What matters, as far as establishing a trade or service mark, is not my corporate name, but what I am putting on the cards as an indicator of source or origin.

The complaint failed because they apparently didn't produce evidence of use as a mark:

This decision should not be understood as a final determination that Complainant is unable to prove common law rights to the mark DAVE AND ADAM’S CARD WORLD. This decision is limited to finding that, on this record, Complainant has not proved that it has rights to the foregoing mark because it has not shown that the public associates the words with Complainant as the source of a particular good.

You'd be surprised how threadbare some UDRP complaints are. A fair number of complainants believe they only have to make assertions, without providing supporting evidence for them.

[Acro]

John, what about "famous mark" claims when they are localized, e.g. a company claiming such status in ...Singapore.

[randomo]

So can the complainant appeal this ruling and bring evidence of their common-law rights to this phrase?

[jberryhill]

So can the complainant appeal this ruling and bring evidence of their common-law rights to this phrase?

There are no "appeals" in the UDRP. They can go to court if they want, or they can file another UDRP - this time with some evidence. Whether a panelist wants to consider a re-filed UDRP is up to the panelist. Typically, if you come in with stuff you should have submitted the first time, panelists are not sympathetic.

[randomo]

I understand that our justice system is based on presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt. However, it's crazy that some random person can register and attempt to profit from a domain like that, when there's a company with that name. I hope the complainants find a way to dispossess & punish the transgressors.

[jberryhill]

I understand that our justice system is based on presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt.

Ummm..... that's in criminal proceedings.