Upcoming UDRP cases -- Lassie.com, azureus.com, knot.com and others

[GeorgeK]

Let's take a peek at some of the UDRP cases in the pipeline:

1) Lassie.com -- perhaps a movie is coming out, and the complainant is the representative of that famous dog? However "lassie" is also a dictionary term, meaning "a girl or young woman who is unmarried." Given the current domain registrant owns stephenking.org, jamescarville.com, rush-limbaugh.com and other famous celeb names, which can be used to demonstrate a pattern, my money's on the Complainant if they were smart enough to dig up that info.

2) antiairfrance.com -- this is an amusing case for Air France, who have been going after many infringing domain names, including airfrancesucks.com. Why amusing, you ask? They already won a previous case in 2002 for the same domain! As the domain is now parked at TrafficZ, it should be an easy win for the airline. If there's a defence, it'd be interesting to see if they raise the point that Air France abandoned the domain by not renewing it....

3) tatatel.com -- the huge Indian Tata Group appears to be going for the .com version of their .co.in domain. As the respondent is Domaincar, it should be an easy win for the company famous for its bodacious tatas.

4) elitemodels.com -- Elite Model Management has a registered TM for "Elite Model Management", and owns the domain elitemodel.com. They also own the stronger US registered TM for ELITE. The respondent is from the UK, but it appears the complainant has UK trademarks too (the UK TM database is down as I type this, though, so I can't read the individual TMs, although I can do a broad search to see the matches). If all the panelists are straight males, their lower brain will tell them to vote for the Complainant, especially if they furnish pictorial appendices to document their case.

5) freeverisign.com, verisign.name -- our good pals at VeriSign have a couple of pending cases at WIPO, which should be easy victories. It's uncommon to see a .name case these days. Of course, they'll get the domain name of their dreams, VerisignSucks.com, when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

6) azureus.com -- this will be an interesting case, because the domain name was first registered in April 2000, well before the open source file sharing project was released in June 2003, assuming they are the complainant. The domain name has changed hands several times, though, so the Panel *might* use the date of the last ownership change as being the relevant date. Or, the Panel might go with logic of the voyuer.com UDRP case, where the respondent in that case successfully used the "successor-in-interest" argument to hold onto the original registration date. The current website does seem to be targeting users of the open source software, with the terms "Your Favorite Filesharing Headquarters". The US Trademark Application has not been registered at this time, so I think the Respondent might win this one. Note to Open Source authors -- get the .com BEFORE you name a project.

7) knot.com -- this is an old domain, registered since March 1996. It's now parked at DomainSponsor, with keywords in the "wedding" space, just like The Knot, who is presumably the complainant. TheKnot.com was first registered in June 1996, so they have an uphill fight, because it's hard to make the argument that the domain name was "registered in bad faith" when knot.com was registered 3 months BEFORE theknot.com, especially if one applies the "successor in interest" argument as in Voyuer.com, as mentioned above with Azureus.com (knot.com has changed hands several times, if one views the WHOIS history). Given the fame of the complainant, though, I predict the UDRP panel will bend over backwards, and give them the victory, despite other precedents that should say otherwise. As a friend has noted, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." UDRP is not supposed to be used when the only issue is *currrent* infringing use, when the domain was *not registered* in bad faith. But, UDRP panelists like to use their hammer for all disputes, nonetheless.

8) tigre.com -- another old domain, from 1996, it's the Spanish word for "tiger", and has a nice photo of a tiger on the website, selling webhosting services. I predict the respondent will win this one (although I'm not sure who the complainant is, as Google doesn't show anyone dominating that term for services, further demonstrating it being generic).

9) savechildren.com -- this should be an easy win for the Save The Children charity, assuming they are the complainant. The domain is parked at TrafficZ, with charity links. Worse, though, is the metatags and keywords in the site, if you do a "View Source". When your "Title" tag is stuffed with adult keywords for a children's charity site, you have no hope of winning a UDRP. Some of the keywords include: anal, teen sex, upskirt, porn, big tits, free porn, preteen. As the registrant appears to be in the US, they're lucky they only have a UDRP to deal with, instead of the pals of John Zuccarini.

10) sylviasaint.com and silviasaint.com -- famous model and adult actress Silvia Saint is likely going after these domains. I predict easy wins for her. It's too bad the WIPO decisions are all text.....

11) absolut.net -- the respondent in this case is BuyDomains, which should make it interesting. They use only a generic lander at this time, instead of one targeting the famous vodka brand. As the term is a dictionary term, this one will be interesting, if they decide to put up a fight. I'm going to predict a loss by a 2-1 split decision, though. I hope they win, though.

12) JeffreyArcher.com -- Alberta Hot Rods, who won the famous BruceSpringsteen.com UDRP (and still owns that domain) is the respondent in this case. I predict that the respondent will lose this case, though, just as they've lost others, like jrrtolkien.com.

13) toh.com -- this case at NAF involves Telepathy as respondent, and the WHOIS history reveals they've owned the domain for several years. Google doesn't reveal any famous natural complainant, though....I predict a win for Telepathy.

14) h5.com -- the h5.com domain name is being fought for at NAF, with the respondent defending its right to own a short domain name. I predict they'll hang onto this one. There are a couple of US TM applications for "H5" exactly, but nothing famous or registered, and a Google search doesn't reveal any natural dominance by a company for the term.

15) hernon.com -- another case fought at NAF, with Ashantiplc (owners of ashanti.com) defending. Although Hernon Manufacturing has a TM, it's not for the shorter "Hernon", so I predict a loss for the complainant, if indeed they are the ones bringing this case.

16) myspcae.com, myspae.com -- 2 of the higher overture myspace.com typos being recovered at NAF, with Overture numbers of 7209 and 3990 with the extension in Feb 2006, respectively. Easy wins for MySpace, I imagine.

Feel free to add to this list, if there are any interesting pending cases I've missed.

[Restecpa]

Nicely summed up and an interesting read too. Thanks!

[madcamel]

Thanks for the post.

[simon]

thanks for the post. Great work

[stuff]

owner off elitemodels.com is also a forum member here.
I think he said in appraisal thread that he had $9k offer for it.

[Bart]

very interesting read, thanks

[P10n33R]

Great read.

[jdk]

Very nice post George.

[Dave Zan]

1) Lassie.com -- perhaps a movie is coming out, and the complainant is the representative of that famous dog? However "lassie" is also a dictionary term, meaning "a girl or young woman who is unmarried." Given the current domain registrant owns stephenking.org, jamescarville.com, rush-limbaugh.com and other famous celeb names, which can be used to demonstrate a pattern, my money's on the Complainant if they were smart enough to dig up that info.

They just might, thanks to your post here. :-D

[izoot]

Thanks for the play by play George...well done.

[jberryhill]

So, George the Greek is giving me 2 out of 3, eh?

[GeorgeK]

Now don’t be sad, ’cause two out of three ain’t bad.

[GeorgeK]

The toh.com case has been decided at NAF, and it is a victory for the respondent:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/651060.htm

This was not unexpected, as it didn't appear that there was any famous use of "TOH" as an acronym. The "This Old House" folks had a trademark for "This Old House", but not for the acronym "TOH".

[jberryhill]

One down.

[EJS]

Very good work, congrats!

[GeorgeK]

The h5.com case got decided in favour of the Respondent.

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/652832.htm

h5.com for sale for only $8,000? I bet the price goes up after this victory.

Another win for John Berryhill.

[Dave Zan]

The h5.com case got decided in favour of the Respondent.

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/652832.htm

h5.com for sale for only $8,000? I bet the price goes up after this victory.

Another win for John Berryhill.

He's on fire!

[EJS]

Another one bites the dust...

[jberryhill]

Two down.

One to go.

One on deck.

[scrsteven]

Great reads. I know who to go to if I ever have to fight for my rights to a name.