| Outrageous decision. The spelling of chilli is correct either way. The clincher appears to be an obscure ruling meaning that due to the fact that over time, ads appeared for sunglasses on the page, the defendant prifted from their mark. The ruling seems to be that the defendant cannot plead ignorance to this.
This, in my opinion, is the problem here. If Frank is notified that these ads are on the page by the complainenet, and removes them, as it is shown he has- that should be the end of it imho, or at least, that should remove that element of the case from being relevant.
UDRP panels must come to recognise that large portfolio holders CANNOT, check every domain they own for the ads that they are displaying, especially if they change over time- it is just not practical.
Surely, if a complaint is made on a generic term like this, and the ads are removed- that is demonstration enough that the defendant had no intention to profit from the mark...
I see people now making much more use of new tools in parking allowing you to block ads relating to certain terms.
This is a harsh decision I hope will be overturned.
__________________ FOR SALE NOW: W-U.com $6k
|