WWF.com WIPO case - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**GeorgeK** · 08-05-2006, 08:43 PM

Just filed last week at WIPO:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/case...0800-0999.html

(case number D2006-0975)

Should be a very interesting one. WWF.com still gets a lot of traffic, judging by the Overture stats (6233 with the .com for June 2006).

**TheWatcher** · 08-05-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

Just filed last week at WIPO:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/case...0800-0999.html

(case number D2006-0975)

Should be a very interesting one. WWF.com still gets a lot of traffic, judging by the Overture stats (6233 with the .com for June 2006).

This domain name was catched by a domaineer. If I remember it correct, from Namewinner for a regular price. This domain was let go by wrestling federation (now named as wwe.com) lost against wwf.org. I'm assuming that wwf.org pursue this case again.

Time to let go.

Em

**john211** · 08-05-2006, 09:28 PM

Interesting? This is how WIPO will resolve this.
" WWF is still known and remembered for wrestling. Therefore confusingly similar. The respondant is using a little wrestling picture on the main page, therefore bad faith. The domain is undevelopped, therefore shows no interest."
With all the reasons mentionned, the Panel orders the domain to be transfered to the complainant.

But seriously, this should really be interesting, and who's suing anyways, wwf.org or wwe?

George, you have so many high profile domains that you probably paid a nice chunk, how do you manage with all these domain issues. Before, I thought security and hijacking were the biggest issues, now I read all this WIPO stuff. What would you do if you were ordered to transfer a big one of your names, say Pal.com, to a complainant, say paypal or whatever? Pal.com is in the leagues of men.com and other very high profilers, and surely 7 figures. And the panel says "transfer". Just interested in your feelings on the matter.

Thanks

**GeorgeK** · 08-05-2006, 09:30 PM

But, it's a case where it's not being used in a way similar to the World Wildlife Federation or its trademarks --- it's to be similar to the WWE (who presumably did not file the UDRP). So, demonstrating bad faith will be hard.

John: I've never had a UDRP, and I've only had the flimsiest of C&Ds (e.g. the prior owners of tax.net tried a C&D years ago, after the name expired and dropped, claiming to have trademark rights to "TAX" -- that didn't get them very far with me! I don't fall for their lame arguments). UDRP cases can be appealed in real court, so that's always a route one can take if there is a bad ruling. My portfolio is mostly populated with generics, so any cases would be an uphill battle for a challenger from the start. Having strong legal representation, before one actually ever gets a case, is important too.

**john211** · 08-05-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

But, it's a case where it's not being used in a way similar to the World Wildlife Federation or its trademarks --- it's to be similar to the WWE (who presumably did not file the UDRP). So, demonstrating bad faith will be hard.

Most of the times, with all the cases I read on WIPO, when the first 2 conditions are met, confusinly similar and no interest, bad faith just follows with a lousy argument.
Trademarks? For WIPO, their 3 conditions are more important than trademarks. My odds for this case, Complainant 1.4, Respondent 2.6

**GeorgeK** · 08-05-2006, 09:46 PM

At least in this case, the current registrant can afford the best legal advice, so that should make it a fairer contest.

**john211** · 08-05-2006, 09:51 PM

Actually, after giving it many thoughts, bad faith in this case would really make it the determinant factor. I think the respondant might actually win this.
New odds, 2.2 - 1.7

**beatz** · 08-05-2006, 10:43 PM

Hmm.

Who is the complainant ? Couldn't see it on the wipo site.

As for bad faith, they sure would not be able to show proof of *registration* in bad faith.

And if the current owner is still the one from back then, George is right about his ability to afford best legal services...

Btw - George, maybe you can PM me with the current owner's details, i might be of help in this case.

**DNQuest.com** · 08-05-2006, 10:58 PM

This is interesting, let not forget the huge lawsuit the animal people served against the wrestling people. wwf.com used to be the wrestling site and had an agreement with the Wildlife Fund. The Wrestling company used the TM WWF against the terms of the agreement and lost the use of WWF completely... this is why it is now called WWE. wwf.com was transferred to the wildlife fund. So I find this surprising this has happened.

**beatz** · 08-05-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

wwf.com was transferred to the wildlife fund

Not really

The court's decision only required WWE to *delete* certain names (actually a huge amount of names), not to *transfer* them.

**Acro** · 08-05-2006, 11:55 PM

How much was your selling price beatz, $5k to You Know Who? :-D

**RazorNF** · 08-06-2006, 12:46 AM

On a side note, after all this time, I still find myself referring to the wrestling organization as the WWF... and though the wildlife's group has the same acronym, i still refer to them using their whole name.

**GeorgeK** · 08-06-2006, 01:06 AM

If the World Wildlife Fund wins (assuming they are the complainant), millions of visitors who are looking for Trish Stratus, Torrie, and Candice (the GoDaddy Girl):

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/divas/

will be misdirected to a different kind of "wild life".

Perhaps the GoDaddy girl should be a panel member?

**italiandragon** · 08-06-2006, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

If the World Wildlife Fund wins (assuming they are the complainant), millions of visitors who are looking for Trish Stratus, Torrie, and Candice (the GoDaddy Girl):

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/divas/

will be misdirected to a different kind of "wild life".

Perhaps the GoDaddy girl should be a panel member?

:greenbigeek: wow....I remember when I was a teenager watching Hulk Hogan or Andrew the Giant..........that was what I call Wrestling......now seeing that page after I have not been watching it for years.....it seems another version of Playboy.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REAL WRESTLING?

**DNQuest.com** · 08-07-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beatz

Not really

The court's decision only required WWE to *delete* certain names (actually a huge amount of names), not to *transfer* them.

I guess the wildlife fund wants someone else to register the domain so they could sue the new owners.. talk about a revenue stream lol

I honestly thought the wildlife fund had control of wwf.com, I will research this during some free time, it has me curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by italiandragon

:greenbigeek: wow....I remember when I was a teenager watching Hulk Hogan or Andrew the Giant..........that was what I call Wrestling......now seeing that page after I have not been watching it for years.....it seems another version of Playboy.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REAL WRESTLING?

I have been following wrestling since 1980, those were the fun years. It has gotten too stupid these days. The writers are all hired from Hollywood (soap opras) and most do not even know aobut wrestling.

**Dave Zan** · 08-08-2006, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

I have been following wrestling since 1980, those were the fun years.

My fave 80's match was the Hulk Hogan - Ultimate Wrestler one. :-D

**Ian** · 08-08-2006, 03:46 AM

IMHO i think the domainer here stands a big chance of dealing World Wild Fed a severe blow. But the WIPO panel might allow itself to be carried by such lame historical arguments like `respondent has been sued before for typosquatting` which so far have proven to beat many domainers to the game. The outcome would be quite interesting to hear!!

**stuff** · 08-08-2006, 12:16 PM

hitfarm parking page is generic, I wonder if it was all the time?

**DNQuest.com** · 08-08-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

IMHO i think the domainer here stands a big chance of dealing World Wild Fed a severe blow. But the WIPO panel might allow itself to be carried by such lame historical arguments like `respondent has been sued before for typosquatting` which so far have proven to beat many domainers to the game. The outcome would be quite interesting to hear!!

The Wildlife fund had alrady beaten the wrestling organization over the WWF TM (which is why it is called WWE now), I am sure the non-profit organiztion will wasted as much money needed to defend thier TM.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-271519.html

I bet if you use it to promote wrestling, they will come after you.

**beatz** · 08-08-2006, 12:40 PM

Guess one day i will write a book about it and go on Oprah...

Anyway, TM issues were *not* the reason why WWF had to change their name to WWE (the panda guys have a TM since 1965 or something like that anyway) but in a nutshell WWE broke a 10 year old agreement they had with the Panda bears.