ABT.COM - 3 member panel orders transfer of domain

[Theo]

Hell, John. I am not a lawyer and my common sense pointed out exactly the same absurd approach the panel took.

 

[gingeman]

I think this is clearly a bad decision. There is no bad faith shown at the time of registration, it is the same person who owns the name as before, and I cannot understand how the owner of a 3 letter acronym domain can be held responsible for what advertisers bid on that term, and therefore appear on the parking page. I also don't see what is so 'wrong' about making money from advertising, as opposed to any other means of making money on the website. This is a big blow for domainers and I hope the decision will be contested.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

This is a big blow for domainers and I hope the decision will be contested.

Yes & no. UDRP decisions are not universally consistent, and there are several cases holding that, yes, the domain registrant doesn't select the advertising.

Last month, with at least one panelist in common, there was this:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/860527.htm

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the <fmcu.com> domain name is comprised of four letters that could be an abbreviation for any number of business entities or organizations, which provides additional evidence that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Hydrologic Servs., Inc.. v. Name Delegation, FA 707617 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding no bad faith registration and use of the <hysr.com> domain name because “Given the brevity of the disputed domain name, the obscurity of the mark, the geographic locations of the parties, and the nature of the parties' activities, it would not be reasonable to infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its mark when it registered the disputed domain name.”); see also U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. v. Salvia Corp., FA 612350 (Nat Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2006) (finding no bad faith registration and use by the respondent of the <usfa.com> domain name because at least seventeen entities other than the complainant used the mark and the respondent did not register the domain name with the complainant specifically in mind).

It is true that the Respondent has connected an arbitrary string of characters with a paid search system. However, absent intentional manipulation of the search results provided by the system, there are no links or references relating to the Complainant present at the Respondent's web site. Indeed, the Respondent has registered a number of four-letter domain names for this purpose, merely because they are short, and hence inherently valuable.

 

[italiandragon]

Yes & no. UDRP decisions are not universally consistent, and there are several cases holding that, yes, the domain registrant doesn't select the advertising.

Last month, with at least one panelist in common, there was this:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/860527.htm

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the <fmcu.com> domain name is comprised of four letters that could be an abbreviation for any number of business entities or organizations, which provides additional evidence that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Hydrologic Servs., Inc.. v. Name Delegation, FA 707617 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding no bad faith registration and use of the <hysr.com> domain name because “Given the brevity of the disputed domain name, the obscurity of the mark, the geographic locations of the parties, and the nature of the parties' activities, it would not be reasonable to infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its mark when it registered the disputed domain name.”); see also U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. v. Salvia Corp., FA 612350 (Nat Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2006) (finding no bad faith registration and use by the respondent of the <usfa.com> domain name because at least seventeen entities other than the complainant used the mark and the respondent did not register the domain name with the complainant specifically in mind).

It is true that the Respondent has connected an arbitrary string of characters with a paid search system. However, absent intentional manipulation of the search results provided by the system, there are no links or references relating to the Complainant present at the Respondent's web site. Indeed, the Respondent has registered a number of four-letter domain names for this purpose, merely because they are short, and hence inherently valuable.

hello, so who did win in that case? The "domainer" right?

May I ask you, what do you think of the word "cybersquatter" ?

Best regards,

Lorenzo

 

[AlienGG]

hello, so who did win in that case? The "domainer" right?

May I ask you, what do you think of the word "cybersquatter" ?

Best regards,

Lorenzo

what exactly is the question?

While I searched USPTO, there were tons of registrants share the trademark ABT. There is no point to order transfer to any particular tm holder just cuz they sued. This will potentially be an endless battle if all the tm holders start suing the registrant of the domain.

 

[italiandragon]

what exactly is the question?

While I searched USPTO, there were tons of registrants share the trademark ABT. There is no point to order transfer to any particular tm holder just cuz they sued. This will potentially be an endless battle if all the tm holders start suing the registrant of the domain.

I`m sorry but I asked to jberryhill.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

hello, so who did win in that case? The "domainer" right?

Correct.

May I ask you, what do you think of the word "cybersquatter" ?

It means different things to different people, and is frequently mis-used. In general, a cybersquatter is a person who intentionally registers a domain name for the purpose of exploiting a trade or service mark right known to belong to another. Intent should normally be the key word there.

 

[italiandragon]

Correct.



It means different things to different people, and is frequently mis-used. In general, a cybersquatter is a person who intentionally registers a domain name for the purpose of exploiting a trade or service mark right known to belong to another. Intent should normally be the key word there.

Thank you for your replies.

It`s just 1 year and half that I am into "Domaining" like I call it......and still I wonder why no organisations around the world has never been clear about where "domainers" stand.
Who are we? Or, who can we be?
Can we be E-real estate investors without having people with little knowledge calling us cybersquatters?
I think , we are in a sort of limbo where we are whatever the "big hands" ( ICANN , Microsoft , verisign , ENOM, etc...) want us to be.
One day we are customers ( when we need to pay) , one day we are domain investors ( for Sedo, Afternic...) and the other day we are cybersquatters....( UDRP cases).
To me it`s just a big mess. And Icann does nothing.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Can we be E-real estate investors without having people with little knowledge calling us cybersquatters?

Can you have something which someone else covets, and have them like you?

Probably not.

It's like two-year-olds with toys. They only want the ones that other kids have.

 

[Keynes]

It's like two-year-olds with toys. They only want the ones that other kids have.

So, so true. This also applies to women in their 20s...but, I digress. John makes a good point about intent, and it's a bit alarming how generic names are increasingly up for grabs on the basis of seemingly arbitrary panel decisions. Something is askew when EV(UDRP )*P(Win|Domain) << EV (Price|Domain) -- this is moral hazard at its finest, and the current system is increasingly incentivizing corporations to bring WIPO cases rather than negotiate for domains.

 

[AlienGG]

I`m sorry but I asked to jberryhill.

Sorry I misunderstood.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

I definitely see an appeal coming up in the future.

It appears that the domain name has not been transferred....

 

[Glamorama]

arb-forum decisions, you dont need to follow...
Ignore them!

 

[Dave Zan]

arb-forum decisions, you dont need to follow...
Ignore them!

Unless the domain name isn't that important to you, ignore them at your risk.

 

[katherine]

I'm just wondering, if owner goes to court, does he have to obey panel decision in the meantime ?

 

[Steen]

I'm just wondering, if owner goes to court, does he have to obey panel decision in the meantime ?

If the action is in the correct jurisdiction then I believe the registrar halts the transfer until the court makes their decision.