Supremeruler.com UDRP, "Interesting" Ruling...

[Dave Zan]

Have a looksie:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0120.html

In all my years of PC and console gaming, I honestly don't believe I ever came
across the Supreme Ruler game. :-D

Or maybe I did, but I never played it.

 

[March2005]

(1) “The respondent also claims that ‘there are other parties with registered trademarks for this term.’ This statement is in fact false, and we enclose Annex S-2, results from a trademark search at the US Patent and Trademark Office, to demonstrate that there is in fact no registered trademark using this term.”

The United States is the only country that registers trademarks?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

The United States is the only country that registers trademarks?

No, but if the respondent makes the claim, it should be backed up with evidence.

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

This was a very poor decision, in my opinion. It had all kinds of "reaching" in it, in particular the suggestion that different standards of behaviour apply to those who happen to register the domain name first, ahead of someone else that badly wanted it.

"The fact that, despite the Complainant’s efforts, the Respondent managed to register the domain name raises a reasonable inference that the Respondent was just as attentive or more so. For the Respondent to make such an effort to register the domain name belies the explanation that the words are simply descriptive. The Panel has great difficulty in accepting that a professional involved in the Internet would not have realized the value of a name that was identical to that of a well-known computer game. Further, the Panel finds that the combination of the words “supreme” and “ruler” is not very usual."

And also "That is, in and of itself, not objectionable, but when the bulk of that traffic appears to originate with the name of the Complainant’s computer game, the use is improper."

"Supreme ruler" had just 89 searches in Overture in April 2006. It's obvious that using evidence of traffic origination is meaningless in this kind of a case, when the traffic is minimal. Of course, the panel showed their ignorance when they stated the opposite:

"However, the Panel was struck with the extent to which the “Supreme Ruler” name is known and is associated with the Complainant on the Internet. Given this strong presence, in this particular case the Respondent’s use of the domain name must generate very considerable traffic that is solely the result of the Complainant’s well-known computer games."

Pathetic.

 

[BostonDomainer]

makes no sense....where do they get the people to arbitrate on these panels... they just seem incompetant sometimes about the domain business.... does anyone know how they are chosen?

 

[scrsteven]

From the clips you showed I really don't understand that decision.

 

[Dave Zan]

Simply put, the majority believed the Complainant was able to prove all 3. One
major interesting part was how they concluded the Complainant has sufficient
trademark rights despite the lack of a formally registered one.

I read and re-read it an nth number of times just to try to grasp the logic. I
ain't having much luck. :greenconfusedw:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

There is another recent decision which stinks worse, but will be re-visited soon.

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

There is another recent decision which stinks worse, but will be re-visited soon.

Don't be a tease! :wink: Which one??