1994 generic domain lost in UDRP

[Theo]

What a travesty of a defense and a jaw-dropping decision!
This was expected to be a walk for the registrant, but alas, it was a disaster.

 

[Focus]

What a total crock of shit, "Respondent owns 107 domain names, according to a reverse WHOIS lookup, might be considered a pattern of Respondent’s history of purchasing domain names and not using them for legitimate business purposes."

Since when is buying and selling virtual realestate (or parking them for revenue) not a "legitimate business purpose"?

Can we sue this idiot on the respondents behalf?

 

[Theo]

Chris, the defense was quite weak. The panelist apparently has some bias, would be interesting to see other cases that he ruled on.

 

[Focus]

I read the complaint and response, I actually think the defense was quite strong considering his prior usage of the domain and the fact that it does not incorporate the actual entire mark of the complaintant. I am going to contact this guy and advise him of his other legal options, this is fooking ridiculous. Seems to be that Eduardo needed some extra taco money and likely got greased by the hair company. Remember, absolute power always corrupts! This decision, if upheld, would be terrible for the industry as a whole. Unbelievable.

 

[Focus]

Oh and just for shits and giggles, "Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,142,800 filed November 10, 2011, registered May 15, 2012)."

So they registered this mark YEARS after the respondent even acquired the domain name in 2007-2008.

:scratches head and laughs:

Really?

 

[Gerry]

travesty and a fail of a panelist

 

[Dorkside]

Very troubling news for anyone that owns a domain.

 

[draggar]

Wow, this is scary. I wonder if the complaintant just refreshed the page until their ad showed up? How long will it be before a company bids on keywords for a site to get their own ads displayed so they can file a UDRP?

It's coming to the point where businesses will start to acquire each other for free though the legal process.

 

[Dorkside]

How long will it be before a company bids on keywords for a site to get their own ads displayed so they can file a UDRP?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's already happened.

 

[katherine]

Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have its advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word “pig.” Complainant caused the display of its own ad on the Respondent’s website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent.

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/843597.htm

 

[Theo]

That last one was a classic; John Berryhill is an absolute genius.

 

[Focus]

I second that, Berryhill is the man to go to in times of domain legal needs

 

[Seraphim]

Wonder if this will be published on HallofShame.com, even though it's not a reverse domain hijacking case?