According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) “cybersquatting claims” by just 4.6% last year In 2015, 2,754 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) claims were filed, a 4.6% increase on the number in 2014. New gTLDs accounted for 10.5% of the number UDRP’s filed. The New gTLDs .xyz, .club and .email were among […]
Bretzel Ditsch GmbH from Mainz, Germany, represented by Horak Attorneys, Germany was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on the domain name Ditsch.com which was registered on June 28, 1998. To the best of our knowledge this is the first RDNH finding of 2016 (although the decision was entered on December 24th but just […]
The post 1st Reverse Domain Hijacking Finding of The Year & Bretzel Ditsch GmbH Of Germany is Guilty appeared first on TheDomains.com.
Frank Schilling’s Name Administration Inc represented as usually by John Berryhill, Ph.D, Esq., has won another UDRP this time on the domain name Torneo.com which was registered on September 28, 1999. “Torneo” is the common Spanish and Italian word for “tournament” The UDRP was filed by Sport and Fashion Management PTE. LTD. of Moscow, Russian […]
The post Frank Schilling’s Name Administration Wins Another UDRP on 16 Year Old Torneo.com appeared first on TheDomains.com.
In a 3 panelist ruling Vertical Axis holds on to ParkRoyal.com but there is no finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainants are Grupo Costamex, S.A. de C.V. (“Costamex”) of Mexico City, Mexico and Operación y Supervisión de Hoteles, S.A. de C.V. (“Opyssa”) of Cancun, Mexico, represented internally.
1.2 The Respondent is Vertical Axis Inc. of Barbados, represented by ESQwire.com PC, United States of America.
4.1 The Complainants are part of the same group of companies and conduct business in the tourism sector. One of the Complainants, Costamex, is the parent company in this group. The Complainants’ business began in Mexico in 1984.
4.2 The Complainants’ revenues in 2010 were USD 222 million and they have 30 sales offices around the world. Their customer base comes from a large number of countries but is primarily from the North American continent.
4.3 The Complainants’ business first used the “Park Royal” brand in relation to its hotels in 1989. “Park Royal” hotels have subsequently been opened in various places in Mexico and Puerto Rico. The Complainants’ group of companies has been part of the RCI affiliation program since 1999, which has resulted in its Park Royal hotels being promoted among the RCI’s 3.7 million members around the world.
4.4 The Complainants also promote their business from a website operating from the url “www.royal-holiday.com”.
4.5 One of the Complainants, Costamex, is the owner of various trade marks that comprise of or incorporate the term “Park Royal” in one form or another in Mexico, the United States and Puerto Rico. Those marks include:
(i) Mexican registered trade mark no. 669695 for the word mark PARKROYAL in class 42 with a filing date of May 6, 1998. This is the earliest registered trade mark relied upon.
(ii) United States registered trade mark no. 3146797 for the word mark PARK ROYAL in class 39.
4.6 The Respondent is a well-known dealer and speculator in domain names. A company with the name Vertical Axis Inc. was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in January 2002, but this would appear to be the predecessor in business to the Respondent, which is incorporated in Barbados with company no. 24264. Although it is registered in Barbados and two of its directors give addresses in Barbados, its third director, Mr. Ham, has an address in Vancouver, Canada.…
Parlance Corporation lost a UDRP against Dynamo.com on the domain name parlance.com
Of course the domain name is also a dictionary word and the panel found “the Complaint fails to establish either bad-faith registration or bad-faith use” so the panel should have found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking but didn’t even discuss the issue.
Here are the relevant findings by the one member panel:
The Complainant alleged that it owns A registered trademark PARLANCE and has used it since at least 1996 for its business, which is the provision of telephone operator services using speech recognition technology.
The mark was registered in June 1999.
The domain name was registered in August 2001, some 12 years ago but the panel also did not discuss the delay in bringing the proceeding either.
I think it was a lazy decision but a no brainier for the domain holder
“The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because it is in the business of buying and selling domain names.
“The Respondent owns over 5000 domain names and it replied to an email from Complainant with an offer to acquire the disputed domain name, stating that the Complainant is not eligible to acquire or purchase the domain name (apparently the Respondent only sells domain names to entities that acquired a related mark after the domain name was registered)
“The Respondent states that it registered the disputed domain name for its own business use immediately upon abandonment by the prior registrant.
The Respondent executes name conception, logos and brand graphics, trademark research, and promotional copy for new start-ups and for corporations.
Founded in Silicon Valley and based there until 2005, the Respondent holds, and manages for clients, generic and coined domains from and for use in its business.
There are hundreds of companies in the US alone which offer the service of coining and locating names which are viable for a new mark use. Ideally the name proffered has an obtainable intuitive dotcom. The service is neither novel nor obscure, with demand over the past 20 years increasing alongside the growth of the internet.
“As the Respondent correctly points out, there is case law under the Policy to the effect that a business dealing in generic domain names is prima facie legitimate.
“As a result, it does have a legitimate interest in the domain name.
Since “parlance” is a word in the English language, and the Respondent is in the business of registering domain names composed of common words, the Panel holds that the Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.…
Regtime Ltd. and Legato Ltd of the Russian Federation just lost two separate Legal Rights Objections at WIPO on the new gTLD strings .OPR and .KOM
PIR operates the .Org registry.
The second objection was to Verisign’s new gTLD application for .Kom which is the more interesting decision in my opinion.
Regtime has functioned as an ICANN-accredited registrar since 2007. Regtime was the original owner of the word trademark КОМ, registered in the Russian Federation on August 4, 2009 with registration number 385,701 КОМ trademark”).
In the .KOM case Regtime says that in 2000, only ASCII domain names were available for registration in the Russian Federation.
Regtime recognized that VeriSign, Inc.’s solution, which required Internet users to switch character sets in order to type in a single IDN, did not fully meet the needs of Russian speaking Internet users, who wanted fully Cyrillic domain names.
Regtime licensed i-dns.net’s technology in order to provide a privately offered fully Cyrillic product with both the second level and the top-level sections in Cyrillic, described by the Objectors as the “КОМ Cyrillic IDN Product”. Because Regtime was not an ICANN- accredited registry operator like VeriSign, Inc., it could not create a Cyrillic version of an existing TLD, so its product would not be in the ICANN root and would only resolve if the Internet user downloaded a browser plug-in (known as “i-client”) that enabled the browser to resolve Regtime’s КОМ Cyrillic product, or the Internet user’s ISP applied a patch to its system which would enable the Internet user’s browser to resolve Regtime’s products. VeriSign, Inc. was an investor in i-dns.net, so it was fully aware of Regtime’s activities with regard to its КОМ Cyrillic product.
According to the Objectors, Regtime launched its КОМ Cyrillic product in March 2001 and issued press releases announcing the availability of its fully Cyrillic products through a number of channels including PRNewswire, Yahoo, and Techweb. On May 22, 2001, Regtime commenced a large public relations campaign to publicize its КОМ Cyrillic product in partnership with Interfax, the leading Russian International Information Group, which included a press conference with the leading Russian IT journalists and major television stations, as well as television ads on the major Russian National channels. The total expenditure by Regtime for this campaign was approximately USD 60,000. As a result, Regtime’s КОМ Cyrillic product received significant subsequent media attention, including by the BBC.…