rl.com transfer (to ralph lauren) denied

[typist]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2006-1394.html

I wonder what motivates some companies to pursue their perceived rights in such an aggressive way.

[Doc Com]

Amazing.

Obviously what motivates them is they simply think they deserve it and therefore it should be theirs. That is their perception.

[PRED]

Jesus, Ralph Lauren are friggin' w*nkers!
They do some great clothes but what arrogant twats?
What sort of advice were they listening to when they took it on?, ridiculous.
They've surely got unlimited funds if they really want. IF it was for sale, the price tag would now be $15,000,000 to Ralph Lauren Considerably less to anyone else

[Focus]

I hope they never get it ever.

[rusty123]

Unbelievable. And it sounds like they almost got it.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by PREDATOR

What sort of advice were they listening to when they took it on

The advice of their corporate law firm whom I am sure still got paid even though they brought forth a totally bogus claim.

Thanks for the COOKIE!!!!

[Bender]

next, Coca Cola can claim CC.com.
on an unrelated note,
Yahoo has a Y.com TM, so they can claim it also

[PRED]

Originally Posted by Bender

next, Coca Cola can claim CC.com.
on an unrelated note,
Yahoo has a Y.com TM, so they can claim it also

Blimey! Have they really Beachie?
That's scandalous if they have. How can you tm something that doesn't exist yet? I know there are plans in the future to auction the single character .coms off. Surely they could be discredited in the same way some were for tm'ing diamonds.mobi etc
Some obviously slipped through the net. I suppose we all know Yahoo with their clout & no doubt close friends on the ICANN board they'll acquire it. It stinks.

[Bender]

Filing Date August 22, 2005
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition October 24, 2006
Owner (APPLICANT) Yahoo! Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 701 First Avenue Sunnyvale CALIFORNIA 94089

I'm pretty sure other one-letter.com TM's exist

two TM's for G.com....

three for a.com

[Focus]

Pred, that's daniel not beachie...but with those robot avatars and mysterious "bender" terms who can really tell anymore? lol

[sdsinc]

It looks very similar to the recent case of LV.COM (Louis Vuitton)

Originally Posted by Bender

next, Coca Cola can claim CC.com.
on an unrelated note,
Yahoo has a Y.com TM, so they can claim it also

My guess is, Yahoo wants to get an edge with their TM for the day 1-letter .com are released (if they are ever released of course). They must be hoping for a .eu-like scenario

[Acro]

That's it, I am taking TD Waterhouse to a WIPO over the domain of my initials, TD.com

[petrosc]

My initials are PC, maybe I can get PC.com from Intel.

[DNQuest.com]

As of August 9, 2006, the disputed domain name <rl.com> directed Internet users to a home page headed “RL/RL.COM”. The first subheadings under the title of the homepage were “RL” and “Ralph Lauren”. The “Site Menu” then offered links to “Instant Loans”, “Realestate”, Easy Loans, and tenth on a list of 12, “Fashion Design”. Under a subheading “RL” was listed “Cheap Airfare, “Vacations”, “New Cars”, “Car Quotes” and “Jewelry”. (Complaint, Exhibit 5.)

What I don't get, and please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the title of the domain on a parking page created by the domain holder? What I am talking about is the "Ralph Lauren" part of the above description. Or is it automatically generated b the parking page? I honestly thought it was setup by the domain holder, and if that was the case, I would have harped all over that. I know the links are generated by the parking, but I didn't think the title was.

[actnow]

Just because the domain owner won does not mean this problem is over.

"R L" can take it to federal court which will cost the owner $ xxx,xxx to
defend his position. And, it will drag on for years.

Plus, "R L" can take it back to WIPO as many times as they want until the
domain owner makes a mistake. Or, they get a sympathic judge.

The smartest thing he could do is develop the site and attempt to TM it.

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

but isn't the title of the domain on a parking page created by the domain holder? What I am talking about is the "Ralph Lauren" part of the above description. Or is it automatically generated b the parking page? I honestly thought it was setup by the domain holder, and if that was the case, I would have harped all over that. I know the links are generated by the parking, but I didn't think the title was.

They might be referencing the keywords below the domain name.
That is automatically generated if keywords were not manually submitted.

See www.RL.com

[Acro]

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

What I don't get, and please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the title of the domain on a parking page created by the domain holder? What I am talking about is the "Ralph Lauren" part of the above description. Or is it automatically generated b the parking page? I honestly thought it was setup by the domain holder, and if that was the case, I would have harped all over that. I know the links are generated by the parking, but I didn't think the title was.

The title is indeed generated by the keywords, e.g. Sedo does that. A solution is to frame the content, use your own title, keywords etc.

[Focus]

Whoever owned it first has the rights no matter what in a case like this, even if the owner DOES PROFIT from fashion related clicks thats imo a benenit of owning a short and valuable domain name! If Ralph Lauren wants it so bad they can buy it like everyone else! Damnit! This big bully corporate reverse hijacking bullshit is really getting out of control..

[DNQuest.com]

BTW- another good decision based on facts and not assumptions. I have really liked the past few decisions by WIPO (David Pecker). The panelists were looking for proof which they never received. I hope this is a good turning point in disputes top show other panelist how the cases are decided (on proven facts and not assumption of facts). I just hope I am not jinxing us [crosses fingers].

[actnow]

Originally Posted by Focus

Whoever owned it first has the rights no matter what in a case like this, even if the owner DOES PROFIT from fashion related clicks thats imo a benenit of owning a short and valuable domain name! If Ralph Lauren wants it so bad they can buy it like everyone else! Damnit! This big bully corporate reverse hijacking bullshit is really getting out of control..

I am sorry to say it but you are wrong.

The domain owner can not profit from someone else's TM.
Even if the trademark was created after the domain was created.

If the domain owner is using the domain for something other than infringing
on "R L" TM then he should not lose it.

As I said before, the domain owner was lucky because "R L" lawyer was not
as skilled in WIPO as he should have been.

Next time, the domain owner might not be as lucky.

We are going to see more and more reverse hi-jacking attempts in the future.
That is why it is critical for domain owners to monitor what is showing up on
their ppc sites.
(Do as I say, not as I do.)

[Focus]

It's such a big can of worms...everyone is wrong but right at the same time in these situations...easy solution is the good old "first come - first served" motto, and if not, then you gotta buy it *if* it's for sale. This really eliminates so many headaches...or else everyone will be doing this (wipo) to try to get short valuable domains they wish they would have secured 10 years ago.