Upcoming UDRP cases -- Lassie.com, azureus.com, knot.com and others

[Deleted member 70408]

I can't say that I am too suprised considering the fact that he used it as a "Lassie-related" site in 2000. I guess if he had just kept it parked while his economic conditions precluded him from working on his project, he would have been fine.

 

[barkingmad]

mbf.com

Bad decision IMHO

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0450.html

 

[dtobias]

I agree that the mbf.com decision is a bad one (MBF, for Mercedes Benz Finance, is an unregistered, weak trademark, being a three-letter initialism that is not one of the few famous ones like IBM and AOL). It seems like a case where the panel regarded the respondent as "sleazy" because they'd been registering lots of domains without a coherent purpose for registering particular names.

There doesn't seem to be any clear standard of whether and when an independent "fan site" is considered a legitimate user of a name of some entertainment personality, character, etc. Are they always illegitimate (as the panel in the Lassie case seemed to think), or are they sometimes legitimate, like if it's a purely noncommercial fan site? (But it's hard for a site to be considered purely noncommercial, since even hobby sites often have Google ads, etc.)

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

knot.com -- this is an old domain, registered since March 1996. It's now parked at DomainSponsor, with keywords in the "wedding" space, just like The Knot, who is presumably the complainant. TheKnot.com was first registered in June 1996, so they have an uphill fight, because it's hard to make the argument that the domain name was "registered in bad faith" when knot.com was registered 3 months BEFORE theknot.com, especially if one applies the "successor in interest" argument as in Voyuer.com, as mentioned above with Azureus.com (knot.com has changed hands several times, if one views the WHOIS history). Given the fame of the complainant, though, I predict the UDRP panel will bend over backwards, and give them the victory, despite other precedents that should say otherwise.

...an accurate summary of the issues discussed in the case.

2 for 3 on your original list.

Time for a re-deal, George.

 

[Dave Zan]

The panelist's name in the mbf decision appears to be Korean. How ironic.

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

Knot.com and Azureus.com cases were both decided in favour of the complainants:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0340.html
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0315.html

 

[Salient]

The knot.com decision blows me away.

Listen people, regardless of your intentions when purchasing and developing a domain, be prepared to have it stolen legally from underneath you.

How exactly did the complainant "prove" the respondent purchased the domain name in bad faith? The explanation of the respondent claimed to purchase the domain to have a generic dictionary word and should have used it for knots; like types of knots made with ropes and strings...

Ridculous.

I think there are some nefarious activities happening with these boards.

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

The silviasaint.com case was decided in favour of the porn actress, as expected (and unlike the sylviasaint.com case):

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0399.html

Panelists don't have an easy job....

However, it is consensus view among Panelists that a panel may visit the Internet site linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the Respondent and the use of the domain name and that the panel may also undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it feels that it needs that assistance in reaching a decision. ....

The Panel has visited the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to verify Complainant’s allegation. The Panel’s visit on this website has revealed that, indeed, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website offering for sale adult entertainment DVDs and thus capitalizes on Complainant’s mark in her stage name “Silvia Saint”.

Getting paid to surf porn --- tough job indeed! :typing: