blacksingle.com - How does this guy lose this?

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0507.html

-=DCG=-

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

I agree, it was a pathetic decision.

I hope the Respondent appeals in real court.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

That's a kangaroo court -- three panelists and one dissenting?

 

[Dave Zan]

One main problem here is that both engaged in the same line of business at
relatively near times.

Hmmm…

BlackSingles.com, the Complainant’s predecessor in title, is the proprietor of Georgia State service mark registration number S19790 dated February 22, 2002 BLACKSINGLES (word and design) with a claimed date of first use in Georgia of August 1, 1998.

And they say their proof of common-law usage is this:

The Complainant also contends that it has common law rights in respect of the name BlackSingles.com. It produces by way of supporting evidence press articles making reference to the Complainant and its founder from US national and local publications dating back to February 2000.

Then the majority believes:

As will be seen below, while the majority of Panelists are ready to accept on the balance of probabilities that by August 1999 (the date that the Respondent registered the Domain Name and some six months prior to the first of the exhibited journal articles) the Complainant had acquired a goodwill under the name sufficient to constitute common law rights in respect of the name, it is true that there is no direct evidence before the Panel to that effect.

It’s like I can tell the panel, “I started doing business in such on Feb. 1999,
and here’s a promotional article dated August 1999 proving it!” But I actually
engaged in such 2 days prior to that article and just told the publisher about
it shortly. (although I guess that’s for a court to decide…)

Is it reasonable to assume the business may have established itself 6 months
prior to that article or even to assume such in the first place? I wouldn’t think
so without direct proof like the dissenting panelist.

Was it a printed journal telling people about it? If so, did that journal send any
publication to Canada-based users that time?

I tend to agree with the panelists on this part, though:

When they are forwarded, as they are currently, to the Black Singles Connection site, the predominant name they see is ‘Black Singles’, the word ‘Connection’ appearing in much smaller letters. Visitors intending to visit the Complainant’s site are most unlikely to be alerted to their mistake.

Uh, do they actually meant the respondent's site, not the complianant's?

However, do visitors really care if they’re going to either domain if they have
the same intent to look for dates anyway? Then again, the complainant does
“care” since they've claimed common-law usage.

But this phrase is the one I like best: :-D

Respondent mounts a major attack on the validity of those registrations

You win some, you lose some. Good job anyway, John.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

You win some, you lose some. Good job anyway, John.

Thank you.

Nothing is certain in any disputed matter. I agree that the UDRP was mis-applied here. The part that struck me as odd was the majority's characterization of the Respondent's legitimate interest claim to be "weak". It is a long-settled issue that the "no legitimate rights" prong of the UDRP refers to an absence of rights - not a balance of strength, but an utter absence. By characterizing the Respondent's claim as "weaK", and not non-existent, the majority practically admits they are not applying the Policy correctly.

 

[Dave Zan]

Thank you.

You're welcome, John. Hang in there!

By characterizing the Respondent's claim as "weaK", and not non-existent, the majority practically admits they are not applying the Policy correctly.

Now that sounds terribly familiar. A panelist commented something like that in
CircleID:

http://www.circleid.com/article/1152_0_1_0_C/

 

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

I can say their is nobody I would rather have represent me than Mr. Berryhill. There is nobody more professional and knowledgeable than him.

-=DCG=-

 

[aacommerce]

I can say their is nobody I would rather have represent me than Mr. Berryhill. There is nobody more professional and knowledgeable than him.

-=DCG=-

Could you give us an idea of the cost associated with hiring him - and the value - if you don't mind could you point us to any specifc urdp cases?

 

[draqon]

costs:

berryhills costs are actually very very reasonable for a lawyer of his skill level.

value:

well he wins virtually all his udrps, so nuff said. (yeah i realize im ignoring your request for specific udrps but im way too lazy to go digging those up)

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

This is still one of my favorites:

idiotsguide.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm

I particularly liked it because the Complainant's attorney was tremendously rude in pre-dispute correspondence.

This one was also a lot of fun. The Complainant's attorney was the Complainant's principal's brother, and I think he was working for free:

thenerds.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/155179.htm

This one got surprisingly out of control, in terms of volume of material submitted during the dispute, but you'd never guess from the decision what a mud wrestling match it was:

cityofsalinas.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm

But the hands-down winner in the "you wouldn't believe the exhibits" department, was this gem:

hotmomnextdoor.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/479579.htm

Now, if only the hot mom next door was a black single, then maybe...