Question for JB; can it be argued as a defence, that a generic domain which has been parked or had been developed in
any way, has a valid use prior to the TM? And why isn't parking names (or having minisites with the intention of displaying ads) counted as a valid usage? Many businesses only exist as an advertising medium, why shouldn't domains have the same credibility?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingeman 
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...
|
Totally agree - especially when the domain was in use prior to the TM. You're not telling me that the TM holders didn't check to see if the .com was taken when they started their business....the domain holder ought to be allowed one warning prior to a full WIPO in cases like this.