"nhn.com" decision

[Garry Anderson]

This post is purely a tidying up excercise.

I said, "Indeed they were in the process of selling it (although somewhat crudely)."

To which John replied, "No, they were in the process of lying about having a legitimate purpose while trying to extort a trademark owner on the basis of what was considered to be their more likely than not knowledge of the value of that trademark in their native country."

This is sophistry - fallacious reasoning.

They lied about the purpose - because they knew WIPO UDRP process was corrupt - biased in favour of trademark holder.

Even Dan says, "the intials have inherent legitimate uses up the wazoo."

That a trademark owner wanted to buy the generic domain is neither here nor there - anybody could use it for any legal purposes.

Even the trademark owner KNEW this and offered $50,000 for the Domain Name.

John uses perverse argument about LEGALLY killing people - but the domain owner did nothing illegal with the initials - a fact he does not deny.

John> "In fact, I challenged Garry Anderson to guess whether or not most contested two or three letter UDRP's are won by the complainant or the respondent. He decided not to take a proposition on that question because he doesn't want to pay me again, even though I still haven't counted."

1. I did not need to guess - because UDRP is corrupt and a statistical number in favour of complainant or respondent proves nothing. The fact is, EVERY two or three letter domain taken in UDRP (when owner is doing nothing unlawful), is trademark overreach. Another fact that John does not deny.

2. I did not pay John for a bet. I paid him for answering some questions.

[jberryhill]

"They lied about the purpose - because they knew WIPO UDRP process was corrupt"

Oh. Okay. Intercontinental mind reader now, eh?

Guess I'll put on the tinfoil hat now.

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> "They lied about the purpose - because they knew WIPO UDRP process was corrupt"

John> "Oh. Okay. Intercontinental mind reader now, eh?"

Sorry John - I thought we both agreed that they lied when they changed purpose.

Most obvious conclusion is that they did so because they would likely lose domain in corrupt UDRP - if they said they wanted to sell it.

FACT: The domain name was generic and did not belong to NHN Corporation.

They even admit "YOUR <nhn.com> domain coincides with OUR trade name" - emphasis mine.

[Ovicide]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2003-0939.html

For those who found this decision interesting, the name is still registered to the National Health Network in New Jersey, and still points to the National Health Network web site.

[Ovicide]

For those who are interested, the name is still registered to the National Health Network in New Jersey, and it still points at their web site.

The web site has been developed recently, and a product line added.

What's going on?

[jberryhill]

It would appear that the defense allegations were more substantial than had appeared to the panel and that an appropriate action was filed under UDRP Par. 4(k).

[Ovicide]

It would appear that the defense allegations were more substantial than had appeared to the panel and that an appropriate action was filed under UDRP Par. 4(k).

Thanks, John.

Par. 4(k) is explained here, for those who want to read it:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm#4k

I wish them well.

[clemzonguy]

I own NHN.US and just happened to see this thread....

[peekaboo]

I own NHN.US and just happened to see this thread....

u better start developing that site now

[clemzonguy]

u better start developing that site now

Well if that was the case Duke, Yakov, & many others would be in a lot of trouble with all the three letters they own.

Moral of the story is don't build a case for the "bad faith" clause for URDP or you will loose everytime.

[peekaboo]

so as long as we keep them solely ppc-able, 'dead' or otherwise unreachable, we should be fine?

so where's fun in that? i always look into names from the standpoint of development first (rather then resale.) or so i make myself believe

[SONICdomains]

so as long as we keep them solely ppc-able, 'dead' or otherwise unreachable, we should be fine?

so where's fun in that? i always look into names from the standpoint of development first (rather then resale.) or so i make myself believe

What's to prevent domainshop from hiring a company with NHN as its initials going to WIPO under UDRP to have the domain taken back?

I'm sure there are quite a few companies with NHN as its initials that would gladly take the $10,000.

I think it's a ridiculous ruling. NHN is a generic 3 letter term. It is not a "well known trademark." Which has priority, a US trademark, or a South Korean trademark? I can always go back further and further to find a company with NHN as it's initials.

What's to prevent domainshop from hiring a company with NHN as its initials going to WIPO under UDRP to have the domain taken back?

I'm sure there are quite a few companies with NHN as its initials that would gladly take the $10,000.

I think it's a ridiculous ruling. NHN is a generic 3 letter term. It is not a "well known trademark." Which has priority, a US trademark, or a South Korean trademark? I can always go back further and further to find a company with NHN as it's initials.

What a great way to grab 3 letter domains. Bankrupt company? Check out its initials. Wow, this company was incorporated in 1973 "Ninja Hell Nunchucks Inc."
There we go, NHN.com here I come.

Or even better, purchase a group of shelf companies. Darn, I wish I registered tons of shelf companies in 1996. That way I could get nice one and two letter domains given to me for a mere $1,500 by WIPO.

[ParkQuick.com]

But unless I'm reading it wrong the company was willing to pay him a sh*tload of money for a while there. I'd have certainly sold. I think that greed was his downfall.

NHN may be a well-known trademark in Korea. Why should ICANN or anyone else favor one country's trademark over another?

[SONICdomains]

But unless I'm reading it wrong the company was willing to pay him a sh*tload of money for a while there. I'd have certainly sold. I think that greed was his downfall.

NHN may be a well-known trademark in Korea. Why should ICANN or anyone else favor one country's trademark over another?

That's fine by me. If you want that type of faux-egalitarian system, all an enterprising businessman has to do is find some island country with the cheapest trademark registration, register half a million trademarks, make a couple hundred businesses each year each selling $1,000 worth of goods to the locals, and get all the free domains imagineable.

Sounds good to me.

Trademark authority should be based on market size, and/or based on the extension in question. This company did not trademark NHN in the United States and .COM is a US commercial extension, not a Korean extension.

In the future, what is to prevent this type of disaster from occurring between different companies with the same trademarks in their home country? Which trademark should have authority over the domain?

If the domain were NHN.kr, I would have certainly agreed with this decision. Does this company have significant business operations in the United States? It does not. Did it register the trademark in the US? It did not. The company is a gaming company focused on korean gamers.

Furthermore, the domain is generic, leading to even greater potential for conflict. If this is used as precedent, there will be cases where Shinzu Bonsai Sayanora Corp sues for control SBS.com

[Garry Anderson]

Healingsites said, "NHN may be a well-known trademark in Korea. Why should ICANN or anyone else favor one country's trademark over another?"

Indeed so.

It is abuse of trademark to prevent others using theirs in legal commerce.

Many businesses could legally share these exact initials in the same country - if not in same goods or services.

When you buy domain name - are you submitting the word/initials to stringent trademark registration process?

No.

When you buy domain name - are you even submitting word/initials to licence for business in same area of similar named trademark?

No.

Although hundreds may use this word/initials - you had first idea to register them on Domain Name System - it is your intellectual property.

Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY words for ANY legal purpose they wish.

Corrupt WIPO/ICANN accomplices wish to 'steal' your intellectual property - to give to corporate customers - perversely treating you as the crook.

[ParkQuick.com]

I don't really disagree. I don't like ICANN making decisions in this manner at all - but once they are involved I'm not sure that they should favor U.S. trademarks over Korean ones. That was really my point.

[Ovicide]

It would appear that the defense allegations were more substantial than had appeared to the panel and that an appropriate action was filed under UDRP Par. 4(k).

It's been over a year since this decision was rendered, but the name is still registered to the National Health Network in New Jersey.

Has the issue been settled, or is it still under litigation?

[dtobias]

.com is actually an international gTLD, not a US domain.

[Acro]

.com is actually an international gTLD, not a US domain.

And it's managed by Verisign, headquartered in the US. Therefore US laws apply.