DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars - View Single Post

**marcorandazza** · 05-08-2009, 12:37 PM

In my experience, the doozie arguments usually come from Respondents. But, this Complainant takes an honorable mention.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0087.html

The domain name was <mathiesen.com>. The owner was Allan Mathiesen. Although the complainant had a registered trademark to MATHIESEN, how the hell could they not have realized that a person can own a domain name that is their actual family name?

I guess I could see exceptions to this rule. Like if your last name was McDonald and you used mcdonald.TLD to forward traffic to burgerking.com. But, the RDNH in this decision was well deserved.

05-08-2009, 12:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
marcorandazza Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Marc J. Randazza Last Online: 11-16-2009 08:31 PM iTrader: (0) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 262 DNF$: 10 Location: San Diego	A pretty sleazy attempted RDNH In my experience, the doozie arguments usually come from Respondents. But, this Complainant takes an honorable mention. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0087.html The domain name was <mathiesen.com>. The owner was Allan Mathiesen. Although the complainant had a registered trademark to MATHIESEN, how the hell could they not have realized that a person can own a domain name that is their actual family name? I guess I could see exceptions to this rule. Like if your last name was McDonald and you used mcdonald.TLD to forward traffic to burgerking.com. But, the RDNH in this decision was well deserved. __________________ Marc J. Randazza The Legal Satyricon No post should be considered to be legal advice.