The Case Of The Defunct Domain Name Service Provider

[draqon]

The Case Of The Defunct Domain Name Service Provider
from Schwimmerlegal.com

Ottomanelli Brothers hired a web design company. An employee of the company registered the domain name NYCOTTO.COM in his own names for unknown reasons. The design company provided DNS servers. It went out of business and the site went dead. The employee was nowhere to be found. No one could re-point the name without the authorization of the missing employee. So Ottomanelli brought a UDRP in order to get control of its domain name (and re-surrect its site).

Ottomanelli Bros. v. Rob Velez, NAF FA0503000440427 (May 2, 2005).

Reference:
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/440427.htm

Draqons comments:

Well I have no reason to upset that the complainant won this UDRP, they had the only legitimate claim to the domain and the current registrant was nowhere to be found.

That said:

The panelist wrote the following: "Respondent’s nycotto.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OTTOMANELLI mark. Respondent’s domain name incorporates the dominant feature of Complainant’s mark, “otto,” and adds the geographic term “nyc” which refers to New York City, where Complainant operates."

Perhaps I am mistaken, but is this panelist smoking liquid crack or what? How can "NycOtto" be seen as as infringing upon the mark "Ottomanelli"? I dont think the word "otto" can possibly be seen as the dominant part of the mark Ottomanelli, the entire word Ottomanelli is distinctive and irreducible.

Oh and not to mention there is something unwholesome about using the UDRP in such a manner, when its clear the domain wasnt registered in bad faith. Its a violatoin of the UDRPs underlying tenets...but i thought that was obvious so im not posting more than tthis paragraph about it.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by draqon

Perhaps I am mistaken, but is this panelist smoking liquid crack or what? How can "NycOtto" be seen as as infringing upon the mark "Ottomanelli"? I dont think the word "otto" can possibly be seen as the dominant part of the mark Ottomanelli, the entire word Ottomanelli is distinctive and irreducible.

Oh and not to mention there is something unwholesome about using the UDRP in such a manner, when its clear the domain wasnt registered in bad faith.

Exactly. This is a bizarre decision. It just shows how easily UDRPs are manipulated.

I wonder if these shaky rulings to transfer domains for complainants are sometimes a substitute for panelists who didn't get breast fed from their mothers, or didn't get hugged enough as children, or don't get laid enough now.

The UDRP was supposed to address only the most egregious cases of cybersquatting on famous, distinctive, and registered trademarks that were clearly registered and being used in bad faith.

Now, the UDRP is just a common whore with no morals, a catchall for problems, a cheap alternative to litigation, and a hedge for disgruntled and incompetent intellectual property managers.

The UDRP has become a joke!

[Dave Zan]

Reminds me of the 2 or so UDRPs where it was used to recover stolen domain
names. Both that and this were basically used for the same reason: there isn't
any other way to legitimately get the names back without going thru court.

And because the respondent didn't reply, what choice did the panelist have?

[JMJ]

Mabey by making a default judgement because the respodent didn't dispute instead of putting down the same BS wording they use on every decision?

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by davezan1

Reminds me of the 2 or so UDRPs where it was used to recover stolen domain
names. Both that and this were basically used for the same reason: there isn't
any other way to legitimately get the names back without going thru court.

And because the respondent didn't reply, what choice did the panelist have?

But, the UDRP was never intended as a replacement for court. The rules of evidence are not the same, and the panel cannot give injunctive relief, nor issue subpoenas, etc..

The panelist had alot of choice! The panelist could have strictly followed the rules instead of grabbing extra power and wrongly/ unfairly/ unilaterally expanding the role of the UDRP.

:(

[Acro]

I think Otto from NYC has some connections to the mob? :-D

I'm gunna make ya an offa.

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by RADiSTAR

II'm gunna make ya an offa.

...you can't refuse.