Worst Decision Ever:

[namestrands]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0118.html

Complainant Manipulated Evidence and Proof of this was accepted and Submitted.

It is a true sign that the WIPO is prejudice to domainers.

[draggar]

Bad ruling IMO but it sounds like the page was parked. I think the ruling would have gone the other way if the site wasn't parked and didn't have the "this domain is for sale" at the bottom.

This ruling should scream to the community that we should develop as opposed to park.

I'll bet the domain will expire and fetch a good price.

[Ehsan]

Load of Bullocks that is :( , who ever made the decision has brains smaller than a grape !

[namestrands]

The page was parked on to a totally unrelated subject to the complainants Mark, in fact the domain was parked on a domain related to the exact term of the domains keyword.

We submitted undisputed evidence that the complainants evidence was manipulated. The complainant could neither provide evidence that it had traded prior to 2005 which was several years after the domains registration.

The WIPO Panel never citied any case law, they simply looked over it and said.. this is a domainer, got some clerk to rewrite all the points and simply signed their name to it.

[draggar]

WIth the increase in hackers, judgements like this one, and legislation in the process like the SnoweBill, it looks like the domaing business might hit a little slump in the next year or so.

[jasdon11]

As discussed above, the Panel considers that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain in the form of click-through commissions. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this constitutes evidence that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Gin / meat - confusingly similar?

[DNQuest.com]

We submitted undisputed evidence that the complainants evidence was manipulated.

That happened to me. They submitted a screenshot and superimposed a link on it. Ultimately, the panelist looked at teh wrong domain even. So yeah, panelists are becoming worthless.

The complainant could neither provide evidence that it had traded prior to 2005 which was several years after the domains registration.

When reading these boards, I do try to look at both sides of the arguments and play devils advocate, but I am sorry, that claim is a little off. Beefeater has been around for ages, I drank my first one over 30 years ago. Additionally, parking is not being concidered a legitimate business by many panelists.

[namestrands]

But it does come down to burden of proof. Domain parking is a legitimate business model. I have lost UDRPs in the past and 9/10 I accept the decision based on the arguments, while I agree that the domain and the TM are similar, I disagree that all requirements were met.

[David G]

Below is the key reason for the loss, IMO. I believe there was a recent case where it was said the respondent is NOT liable for ads run by Google on the page since the respondent does not have direct control of the ads. I do not recall the domain involved unfortunately.

That case would be strong evidence to use in defense of cases where that issue is important such as the beefeaters.net case which I think would have been much less likely a loss with that setting case what seems to be a legal precedent on the issue.

"The Respondent has directed the Domain Name to a web page containing links referring to beef and related products. It is likely, and not disputed by the Respondent, that it obtains click-through commissions from these links. The Respondent’s page also includes a search facility and when the word “Beefeater” is entered, a page containing links to websites selling various products, including the Complainant’s gin and competing products, is generated."

[draggar]

Gin / meat - confusingly similar?

BeefEater is a brand of gin.

[namestrands]

It is also a chain of restaurants and is also the name of the Yeoman Guards of the Tower of London.

[jasdon11]

BeefEater is a brand of gin.

Precisely - so by displaying meat related ads on the site, how could that be trying to capitalise on the TM for gin?

[draggar]

Precisely - so by displaying meat related ads on the site, how could that be trying to capitalise on the TM for gin?

How could a politician named Sam Adams try to capitalize on Sam Adams Boston lager?

I guess the claim is that Beefeaters.com was "confusingly similar" to beefeater.com which is the site for the gin.

We all do it, come on. When we went to go Microsoft, we type in Microsofts.com. When we want Dell we go to Dells.com and when we want Ford, we type in Fords.com (rolling eyes at the WIPO decision).

Just one more ruling to help give fuel for the Snowe job, er, bill. Obviously nothing is safe right now for anyone. I guess the price of all domains in the US will have a $325 or $350 "trrademark fee" added onto them in the near future. No, wait, make that $500-$550 since the registrar will jack up the price.

[namestrands]

Their are a lot of arguments relating to the when and whys on this case and as I said before I would normally accept defeat if the complainants case was strong. However on this occasion the Panel was wrong and have set a very dangerous precedence that any use of a domain name is bad faith, and that regardless of how corrupt or weak the complainants case is, if they are a large company then they will win.

Due Dilligence was not done on this occasion by the panel, they appeared to make up their mind based on the prejudice of domainers and not on the evidence and use of the domain name.

Injustice is a word that comes to mind, and the lack of appeal process really does make things worse at the WIPO.

I will put this down to a lesson learned, however the ethics of the complainant will be a harder pill to swallow.

[denny007]

We all do it, come on. When we went to go Microsoft, we type in Microsofts.com. When we want Dell we go to Dells.com and when we want Ford, we type in Fords.com

Hm would like to see moron who wouldinstead of beefeater.com beefeaters.net

[namestrands]

Beefeaters.com is a completely different company than the complainant, as is Beefeaters.co.uk - the domain was beefeaters . net

The Complainant owns no other domains with the Beefeaters Mark, this was a total ego trip by the legal counsel and mere fantasy.

How could a politician named Sam Adams try to capitalize on Sam Adams Boston lager?

I guess the claim is that Beefeaters.com was "confusingly similar" to beefeater.com which is the site for the gin.

We all do it, come on. When we went to go Microsoft, we type in Microsofts.com. When we want Dell we go to Dells.com and when we want Ford, we type in Fords.com (rolling eyes at the WIPO decision).

Just one more ruling to help give fuel for the Snowe job, er, bill. Obviously nothing is safe right now for anyone. I guess the price of all domains in the US will have a $325 or $350 "trrademark fee" added onto them in the near future. No, wait, make that $500-$550 since the registrar will jack up the price.

[denny007]

WTF can not edit here

[draggar]

Oops, then we'd type in Microsofts.net, Dells.net, and Fords.net.

Nope, can't edit in the legal area for legal reasons.

Beefeaters.com is a completely different company than the complainant, as is Beefeaters.co.uk - the domain was beefeaters . net

The Complainant owns no other domains with the Beefeaters Mark, this was a total ego trip by the legal counsel and mere fantasy.

I really hope these points were mentioned then it would prove that the panel and WIPO are prejudice against domainers and the domaining industry.

Beefeaters.com - Dog food and for a single company, not an easy case to get it that way.

Beefeaters.co.uk - email service (isn't this no longer considered an "intent to use" item?). Could be easier but they might not have pull in the UK.

[denny007]

Beefeaters.co.uk - email service

Sofar it worked for Netidentity or anyeone saw netidentity lost a domain ?

[Dale Hubbard]

Correct decision IMHO. Beefeaters is gin. End of.