You have 2 years to develop your names or lose them according to NAF

[trader]

A really hard to believe domain loss decision by NAF

"The Panel agrees with Complainant’s assertion that Respondent has not utilized the disputed domain name in an active manner, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith)."

http://domain.adrforum.com/domains/d...ns/1246846.htm

[bigboydog_0]

thats crazy... it like if you bought a piece of land and the local goverment say " build or lose you land" that's insane

[Doc Com]

Very nice find and read.

finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith."

This could be damning and damaging.

...failure to make active use...

I am not sure that this is a good decision or bad decision - that is why I have read this twice.

The respondent contends that Deacom, Inc is the name of his business yet his WHOIS never included Deacom, Inc.
Personally, I wonder if he submitted evidence to or simply stated that he had a business.
The complainant showed that their TM first use was 1995 as well as Deacom, Inc.

Respondent has not used the domain for any DEACOM-related business throughout the past year, but rather as a “transference site.” New term for parked page or redirections?

From my take, this is why it is imperative that if you are going to be in domaining, form an LLC or something and use that name in all your Contact info.

Most of all, I guess I better use my name as a site rather than an email like he did.

[james2002]

We have to develop more sites then.

[draggar]

Awesome! There are some undeveloped / parked .coms I'd like!! Time to file some cases!
(note; Sarcasm)

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by draggar

Awesome! There are some undeveloped / parked .coms I'd like!! Time to file some cases!
(note; Sarcasm)

Hey, why not go for it?

[fab]

Awesome! There are some undeveloped / parked .coms I'd like!! Time to file some cases!
(note; Sarcasm)

Good suggestion!

[draggar]

computers.com forwards to cnet so it's obvious they're not using it.

[cleverlyslick]

Originally Posted by draggar

Awesome! There are some undeveloped / parked .coms I'd like!! Time to file some cases!
(note; Sarcasm)

i think you're on to something

[tomsa]

http://www.udrpfail.com for more infos

very bad decision :(

[fab]

computers.com forwards to cnet so it's obvious they're not using it.

Maybe we should get a group together to you know what!

[JamesDavid]

Originally Posted by bigboydog_0

thats crazy... it like if you bought a piece of land and the local goverment say " build or lose you land" that's insane

actually they can do this. My grandpa had a large chunk of land next to a forest preserve he owned for years. One day the government gave him the option of building a house on it with 3 years or it will be bought back at "fair market value" and added to forest preserve.

[sdsinc]

Originally Posted by draggar

computers.com forwards to cnet so it's obvious they're not using it.

And radio.com (owned by CNET) is still parked

[PRED]

i'd quite like chips.com
intel can't even be bothered to redirect to right page. clearly not using

they are lazy f*ckers though has to be said

[fab]

And radio.com (owned by CNET) is still parked

Lets get 'em!

i'd quite like chips.com

[loudbeats.com]

Originally Posted by fab

Lets get 'em!

do you think its tad easy?

[Acro]

Did the respondent have a lawyer? No? Bad move.
To establish activity you don't even need a website. It can be a POP3/mail server or an FTP host, a torrent seeder on various ports. What a bunch of NA****ers.

[jberryhill]

The complainant showed that their TM first use was 1995 as well as Deacom, Inc.

The Complainant showed no such thing. The "first use" date in a TM application is merely an allegation, and is not required to be supported by evidence. Given the chronology here, it's pretty clear what the TM application was about.

The Respondent also had the bad luck to get Estella Gold as the single member panelist. She genuinely does not understand this stuff very well at all.

The fact that it was registered to "Ben Dean" instead of his business name, cited as relevant, is kind of amusing when you find out that ICANN.org is registered to one of their tech people.

[marcorandazza]

Based on the facts, this seems to be a misapplication of 4(a)(ii).

Back about 8-9 years ago, I thought that panels would trend toward saying that registration with the intent to engage in mere passive holding would be registration in bad faith. Hence the term cyber<b>squatting</b>. I saw a distinctly anti-speculation bent in the UDRP and in some early decisions. However, that trend doesn't seem to have run very deep -- although there are still panelists who accept it.

Again, I think this particular Respondent got screwed - as you shouldn't necessarily need a <b>website</b> in order to be <b>using</b> a domain. I own randazza.com, but it just forwards to my blog. But, I have given dozens of relatives (and people who simply share my last name) free "randazza.com" email addresses.

I'm interested in the philosophical issue here: Whether passive holding and speculation is a good thing, and perhaps this panelist might be on to something. That would be the 4(a)(iii) discussion -- and quite pertinent to the entire domaining industry, which thrives on speculation and passive holding.

On one side, you have this resource -- and much like land in the old west, you could have it for cheap or for free if you put it to productive use. However, you couldn't just stake out a piece of land to sell it later on.

On the other side, you have the argument (that John B. made quite persuasively somewhere) that speculation is an economic force that causes resources to find their actual value -- thus removing them from merely being used by the first guy to stake them out. Using the "land squatter" analogy -- someone might have been able to homestead a terribly unproductive farm on a piece of land that would be much better suited to a very productive factory.

Of course, the practical lesson here is this: If you think your domain is worth something, hire a lawyer to defend your UDRP action.

I'd say that it wouldn't have taken much legal talent to successfully defend this action.

[Acro]

Well-said. Even if the respondent had claimed use via a 27-th dimension matrix allocation on the Deneb constellation; that is, land shares for denebians whenever they visit our planet.