- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0445.html
The disputed domain name is <displaydepot.com>
The disputed domain name is <displaydepot.com>
-
Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Okay, how about "show me marijuana"?
- Thread starter jberryhill
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,556
- Reaction score
- 19
Another lesson for business owners. Get all derivations of your website.
Interesting read. I admit I'm kind of surprised they found Point #2 in favor of the Complaintent, but I'm not a lawyer so what do I know 
. The fact that they were trying to argue that they made a mistake in letting it lapse and that because he registered it TWO YEARS later it was bad faith was laughable.
. The fact that they were trying to argue that they made a mistake in letting it lapse and that because he registered it TWO YEARS later it was bad faith was laughable.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
The finding on point two confuses me as well.
They say that the domain name was not descriptive of the goods, and was not competitive with the Complainant's goods. Therefore, the finding should have been that the use by the Respondent was arbitrary, or was actually argued, suggestive, which means that the Respondent had accrued service mark rights in the term. They even mention that the Respondent had been using a distinctive logo on its site.
I believe the panel was so focused on "is this a descriptive use?" that they completely missed the point that a suggestive use is capable of functioning as a trade or service mark.
They say that the domain name was not descriptive of the goods, and was not competitive with the Complainant's goods. Therefore, the finding should have been that the use by the Respondent was arbitrary, or was actually argued, suggestive, which means that the Respondent had accrued service mark rights in the term. They even mention that the Respondent had been using a distinctive logo on its site.
I believe the panel was so focused on "is this a descriptive use?" that they completely missed the point that a suggestive use is capable of functioning as a trade or service mark.
- Status
Similar threads
