myknot.com 2 wipos in 6 months! - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**dvdrip** · 02-27-2008, 09:02 PM

myknot.com has a second WIPO in 6 months. The owner is the same.
D2008-0033 myknot.com 14-Jan-2008 Pending

This is from last year:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-1006.html

UDRP has become a joke. Something has to be done about this. Soon...

Crap decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2006-0340.html

**Devil Dog** · 02-27-2008, 11:10 PM

Dissenting Panelist
Nasser Khasawneh

Wow, first time I've ever seen that....

**RichInCollege** · 02-27-2008, 11:27 PM

myknot.com took away knot.com?

Am I getting something wrong here...holy crap..

**Devil Dog** · 02-27-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichInCollege

myknot.com took away knot.com?

Am I getting something wrong here...holy crap..

No, The Knot, Inc. wipo'ed myknot.com but lost, but in 06 The Knot, Inc. wipo'ed knot.com and won.... BS

**RichInCollege** · 02-28-2008, 12:03 AM

that's what I meant..about the 06...that's definitely BS. I bet the owners were pretty pissed. knot.com is a very serious name.

**dburk** · 02-28-2008, 12:28 AM

Does this mean that any dictionary word can be taken away just by trademarking it with a "The" in font of it?

What ever happened to the principle of predated use and common use language?

It seems this panel picked only the parts they wanted and ignored key principles of trademark law, this sets a really bad precedent in my opinion.

**Fatbat** · 02-28-2008, 02:05 AM

I would have completely flipped out if that was my domain.

It was registered before theknot.com existed, it's a generic word, it's so many things. I sure hope they continue to fight this.

**dvdrip** · 02-28-2008, 07:23 AM

I would really like to know if the Complainant for the second WIPO for myknot.com is the same as the first one.

**Devil Dog** · 02-28-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvdrip

I would really like to know if the Complainant for the second WIPO for myknot.com is the same as the first one.

Looks like it to me.

**spidergoat** · 03-01-2008, 04:15 AM

that knot vs theknot decision is the worst I've seen yet (even though it was a couple of years ago).

couple of things really stand out:

1. panel ruled that, in this case, it strains credulity to believe that Respondent acquired this domain name for $5,000 because of its attraction as a dictionary word. If that were the case, one would expect to see links and advertisements related to the kinds of knots made from rope and string, which is the primary meaning of the word “knot” in the dictionary reference Respondent submitted with its Response. So they penalized him because weddings wasn't the first dictionary reference, although they acknowledge it was there. wow. that really makes good sense. And not believing a dictionary dot com can be worth 5,000? boy, they sure know their internet stuff. And they expect to ads for rope and string for a wedding related dictionary term? that's a keeper! What are the qualification requirements for these panel guys? What interweb reality did they come from?

2. Another reason that the Panel doubts the veracity of Respondent’s claims is that its assertions – particularly, its claims regarding its motivation for acquiring the disputed domain name, and its lack of knowledge of Complainant and its mark at that time – were contained only in the Response submitted and signed on Respondent’s behalf by its counsel, and not in any sworn affidavit signed by an individual with personal knowledge. Uh, you have to be kidding me. This one goes beyond the pale. He was penalized because his lawyer represented him?!

3. Piece de resistance, they inferred he must have had prior knowledge of the company trademark because both parties’ sites are in the same language (English). I laughed out loud at that one. Time to develop in Swahili I guess.

How was this not appealed in court? I notice theknot has the name, so it must not have happened.

This is the worst one of seen (I've looked at lots, don't know how I missed this one). I wonder we are going to end up, 'cause there's a lot of chilly stuff out there for domainers right now.

**DNQuest.com** · 03-03-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dburk

It seems this panel picked only the parts they wanted and ignored key principles of trademark law, this sets a really bad precedent in my opinion.

I have first hand knowledge of this. Panelist can and do choose what they want to see, perhaps to get a finding which they may have prejudged already.

**Fatbat** · 03-03-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spidergoat

How was this not appealed in court? I notice theknot has the name, so it must not have happened.

Yeah, I originally missed the fact that this happened 2 years ago. Maybe they blew their budget buying the domain and didn't have any money left for a court case. Seems odd that they wouldn't fight for it.