Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Name News
Fortini.com: A precedence that is an end all to domain name investing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="amplify" data-source="post: 2343390" data-attributes="member: 130638"><p>Rob Monster ([USER=143534]@robmonster[/USER] the "Respondent"), the CEO of Epik and owner of DNForum, was <a href="https://domaingang.com/domain-law/fortini-com-udrp-shows-350000-asking-price-for-common-surname" target="_blank">slapped with a UDRP</a> for the domain name Fortini.com by N.V. Nutricia ("Complainant") as reported by [USER=6561]@Theo[/USER] of DomainGang.</p><p></p><p>The Complainant, producers of the food supplement "Fortini", registered marks in multiple countries in 2010 while the Respondent registered the domain in 2012.</p><p></p><p>The Respondent alleges that it is a common surname and priced it at $350,000 after negotiations.</p><p></p><p>The panel didn't believe that was an appropriate price for the domain stating, "Complainant argues Respondent registered or uses the <fortini.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is selling the domain name in excess of costs of registration or maintenance associated with the domain name as a counteroffer to Complainant’s initial offer."</p><p></p><p>This can be interpreted that anything in excess of the registration fees and the maintenance costs of a domain paid by the Respondent can merit a "bad faith" registration and a Complaintant may gain ownership of a domain solely due to that reasoning alone.</p><p></p><p>In all fairness, the Complainant alleges that the domain name was registered in bad faith to profit from. However, trademark squatters typically intend to profit with ads selling similar to even the same products as marks they infringe upon, not on the domain names themselves. That is to say if this domain was registered to profit from as a product and not from a Mr. or Mrs. Fortini claiming their surname.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, the domain was transferred to the Complainant.</p><p></p><p>It's believed that this decision sets a dangerous precedence for domain name investing moving forward. This is because this decision can always be used as a defense of any complainant based upon their valuation of a name, in this case, the Complainant valued it at $5,146.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="amplify, post: 2343390, member: 130638"] Rob Monster ([USER=143534]@robmonster[/USER] the "Respondent"), the CEO of Epik and owner of DNForum, was [URL='https://domaingang.com/domain-law/fortini-com-udrp-shows-350000-asking-price-for-common-surname']slapped with a UDRP[/URL] for the domain name Fortini.com by N.V. Nutricia ("Complainant") as reported by [USER=6561]@Theo[/USER] of DomainGang. The Complainant, producers of the food supplement "Fortini", registered marks in multiple countries in 2010 while the Respondent registered the domain in 2012. The Respondent alleges that it is a common surname and priced it at $350,000 after negotiations. The panel didn't believe that was an appropriate price for the domain stating, "Complainant argues Respondent registered or uses the <fortini.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is selling the domain name in excess of costs of registration or maintenance associated with the domain name as a counteroffer to Complainant’s initial offer." This can be interpreted that anything in excess of the registration fees and the maintenance costs of a domain paid by the Respondent can merit a "bad faith" registration and a Complaintant may gain ownership of a domain solely due to that reasoning alone. In all fairness, the Complainant alleges that the domain name was registered in bad faith to profit from. However, trademark squatters typically intend to profit with ads selling similar to even the same products as marks they infringe upon, not on the domain names themselves. That is to say if this domain was registered to profit from as a product and not from a Mr. or Mrs. Fortini claiming their surname. Ultimately, the domain was transferred to the Complainant. It's believed that this decision sets a dangerous precedence for domain name investing moving forward. This is because this decision can always be used as a defense of any complainant based upon their valuation of a name, in this case, the Complainant valued it at $5,146. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Name News
Fortini.com: A precedence that is an end all to domain name investing?
Top
Bottom