The UDRP of another LLL.com! - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

Mr. Deleted · 08-04-2006, 05:45 AM

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2006-0294.html

Quote:

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <cmz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

this sucks, why are these people allowed to even UDRP anything shorter then 4 letters!

Mr.Domains · 08-04-2006, 06:10 AM

It's dumb. By that logic I could just setup trademarks for "AA", "AB", "AC", etc, then claim all the 2 letter domains! ;-)

**lyndonmaxewell** · 08-04-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

(a) Although the Complainant’s mark is an acronym or an abbreviation, it has been registered and used as a trademark since 1966. There is substantial goodwill and reputation attached to the mark particularly in the specialized field of machinery. The fact that the Complainant does not have trademark rights in China is not conclusive as the Policy does not require that the Complainant establish that it has trademark rights in the jurisdiction of the Respondent. The Complainant submitted evidence that it attends to international events within the industry. Based on the record, the Panel finds on the balance, that the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Wow.. The respondent is in China which is like zillions of miles away from the complainent! Its as if the respondent will read history on companies before registering. "CMZ" --> there must be many other companies with this same acronym or one or two that were trademarked before 1966 too..

How does it sounds to you?

**malmar2** · 08-04-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

This appears highly irregular and inconsistent with the assertions of the Respondent that he has been authorised to construct the website for the benefit of Ming Xing Ball Bearing Factory.........This certainly cannot be a website that has been constructed and used since 1995 as asserted ........It is also important to note that the contact address of Ming Xing Ball Bearing Factory could not be found on any of the documents adduced by the Respondent.

The Panelist caught the Respondent lying and didn't like it.

Looks like the Respondent must have also had it for sale on Sedo. A good example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

Mr. Deleted · 08-04-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malmar2

The Panelist caught the Respondent lying and didn't like it.

Looks like the Respondent must have also had it for sale on Sedo. A good example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

huh? http://sedoparking.com/cmz.com

Quote:

Are you the owner of this domain and want to know why this page looks different than your other parked domains? Please click here ...

it was never even added to sedo.

He may not have had that companies info in there, but why can a web designer not control the domains of their clients, although I myself would want my own domain in my control, some companies let the designer do it.

Quote:

Registry Data
ICANN Registrar: BIZCN.COM, INC.
Created: 30-Dec-1995
Expires: 29-Dec-2008

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cmz.com

It looks like it was a porn site for a few years though

Banned: denny007 · 08-04-2006, 08:23 AM

He could argue he is using the domain for emails only

Mr. Deleted · 08-04-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denny007

He could argue he is using the domain for emails only

Yes, he could have done that, but I think Jberrhill would have been better at presenting this case then it was.

**italiandragon** · 08-04-2006, 08:40 AM

I knew....it`s all BS.

I am going to trademark 10 LL.com now.

**malmar2** · 08-04-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Deleted

huh? http://sedoparking.com/cmz.com

it was never even added to sedo.

Not parked - just listed for sale at Sedo. See the part 5 "Parties' Contentions" section.

Quote:

(b) Domain name selling request from the Respondent

The Claimant claims it was listed at Sedo for $10k, but then when they contacted the Respondent he wanted $35k.

The Respondent later denies trying to sell the domain....by producing his ball bearing company contract. Which the Panelist believed to be fictional.

Mr. Deleted · 08-04-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malmar2

Not parked - just listed for sale at Sedo. See the part 5 "Parties' Contentions" section.

if it was LISTED, it would be a listed parking page there.

**italiandragon** · 08-04-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Deleted

if it was LISTED, it would be a listed parking page there.

He may have changed it anytime

**DNQuest.com** · 08-04-2006, 10:26 AM

If you read the whole decision, the only option was to transfer the domain to the complainant. From some of the responses read here, not everyone read everything and are making general statements. It seemed clear to me he was trying to profit from the TM and he did seem less than credible in his story.

**italiandragon** · 08-04-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

If you read the whole decision, the only option was to transfer the domain to the complainant. From some of the responses read here, not everyone read everything and are making general statements. It seemed clear to me he was trying to profit from the TM and he did seem less than credible in his story.

I admit I did not read all but I am firm to consider the whole current situacion of WIPOs and UDRPs just unfair and confusionary.

**Dave Zan** · 08-05-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italiandragon

I admit I did not read all but I am firm to consider the whole current situacion of WIPOs and UDRPs just unfair and confusionary.

Then if you're up to it, how about you take time to read the other UDRPs? I
did, and it helped me gain a better understanding of how and why this or that
happens.

Sure it possibly needs more work. But I find it fair and reasonable, only some
people aren't.

Oh, and the link below is for a similar thread that's just as relevant today as it
was first discussed:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=intent

On the side, it's a shame the registrant for this latest UDRP lost. But s/he had
"deserved" the result.

**DNQuest.com** · 08-05-2006, 09:08 AM

You are confused because you don't read and research, well, that would explain it. There are rules in place that works for both saides. You don't follow the rules, expect to lose. If you don't understand and don't bother to read up, whose fault is that? All decisions are out there for the reading, you can see how you can protect yourself and not make the same mistakes as others have.

Knowledge IS power.... good research will go a long way.

**Creature** · 08-05-2006, 09:18 AM

Talking of protecting yourself......there is a really good article here. I have already made changes because of this:

http://www.dnjournal.com/legal/bl-practicaltips.htm

**italiandragon** · 08-05-2006, 11:06 AM

Ok, thanks mates, I will first read, then talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

You are confused because you don't read and research, well, that would explain it. There are rules in place that works for both saides. You don't follow the rules, expect to lose. If you don't understand and don't bother to read up, whose fault is that? All decisions are out there for the reading, you can see how you can protect yourself and not make the same mistakes as others have.

Knowledge IS power.... good research will go a long way.

But it seems I`m not the only one thinking it`s all BS:

http://www.dnforum.com/thread170112.html