““Respondent has raised OTHER issues in connection with this matter, such as whether Complainant is the proper party, and whether the JUMPRO mark is protectible, since it is a combination of TWO GENERIC TERMS.”

That’s quoted directly from the decision. I’m not pulling it out of thin air Berryhill. You raise the banner repeatedly on the first part but you intentionally ignore the latter. Or, did the THREE panel lawyers inaccurately present your statement their too? Everyone else is to blame except for you, is that it …

“Even if Complainant could show current bad faith use of the domain name, WHICH IS POSSIBLE …”

1. Did North American Outdoor Products, LLC ever exist? Yes
2. Does North American Outdoor Products, LLC still exist? They amended their name to ODP, LLC on Jan. 2005. It maintains its original business ID #0640004 that was filed back in 2000.
3. Is NAOP an acronym for North American Outdoor Products? Yes
4. Is NAOP, LLC a valid company name as it relates to this matter? No
5. Did NAOP, LLC misrepresent who they really were? Yes
6. Is there a company out there selling a Jump Pro brand of trampolines that would have an arguable claim against JumpPro.com? Yes

Is that clear enough now? Think of a new diversion.

You are claiming that the current use of JumpPro.com as a PPC site justifies SENIOR USAGE. That’s laughable. I challenge you Berryhill to file a trademark application with the USPTO and claim that (PPC) as USAGE IN COMMERCE. It would certainly count as usage anywhere but it doesn’t qualify as a senior user. Where are the bonafide goods or services. All that’s offered there are links to the goods or services of others. You don’t get to claim their senior usage (in commerce) as your own simply because you link to it.

Tell me, how is “Jump Pro” generic as it relates to trampolines? For that matter, how is it generic to anything?

“

Ken, I wrote the Response. I know what was in it. Send me your email address. If you find that in there on any point directed to UDRP condition 1 (identity or confusing similarity), then I’ll pay you $50.

Nowhere in the Response or the supplement did I claim, argue, or imply that it was a generic term. Nowhere.

One of my pet peeves about UDRP decisions is that, for reasons I cannot discern, the facts and arguments are very frequently presented inaccurately, and in significant ways.

And, despite your use of parenthesis concerning an LLC which changed its name to something else quite some time ago, there has never been an “NAOP LLC”.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/0800.htm#_T80302c
803.02(c) Corporation and Association

If the applicant is a corporation, the official corporate name must be set out as the applicant’s name.

“At this point we don’t need to know the who; just that there is “a” company out there who is selling trampolines under a “Jump Pro” brand.”

You also need to know the WHEN and the WHERE. I don’t see at all why you are concluding this outfit is the senior user of the term. Senior users have the right to continue use.

Again, and if you want to consider the factual accuracy of the decision – take a look at when the panel states the trademark applicant submitted its specimen to the USPTO. Then, take a look at the actual USPTO record.

At the time the domain name was registered, the trademark applicant was swearing they hadn’t used the mark yet and needed more time to pursue development and manufacturing activities.

2. From decision NAOP LLC v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI):

“Respondent has raised other issues in connection with this matter, such as whether Complainant is the proper party, and whether the JUMPRO mark is protectible, since it is a combination of two generic terms.”

It was never argued because there was no need to considering the panels decision. I mentioned the words “Jump” and “Pro” as not being generic when combined because it was clear you intended to use it as a defensible argument against their claim. The fact is those two generic words, when combined, do create a unique word combination that could be trademarked.

3. Another important fact, and this is where I agree with you Berryhill, is that this company completely misrepresented who they were. That in itself could be considered fraudulent and they did this because of the original issues with their trademark application. It is surprising that the panel of three lawyers never found this out on their own. What doesn’t surprise me is that this company perpetuated this fallacy. We’ve had it happen to us.

4. The quote that you glaringly left out of your response here is the most important one I used; It comes straight from the panel itself:

“Even if Complainant could show current bad faith use of the domain name, which is possible …”

The panel is clearly stating that it is possible to show current Bad Faith usage on “JumpPro.com” when combined with ads for trampolines. Why? Because those two words, when combined, are not generic as it relates to trampolines or anything else for that matter. At this point we don’t need to know the who; just that there is “a” company out there who is selling trampolines under a “Jump Pro” brand. A PPC based site displaying trampoline ads based on “Jump Pro” is bad faith.

This is where the panel’s use of “registered and used in bad faith” instead of “and/or” was so important. The complainant left the door open for the panel when they specifically asked for it in that way.

I received an email from OpenSRS with some one trying to transfer AutoTrimmers.com – we did not generate any transaction for this domain in any way as it is for lease and not for sale.
If someone had access to our administrators email this transfer could go undetected for some time. The domain is extremely valuable and any transaction would require proper legal documentation.
Anyone had this name try to do this Luke Smith Luke Smith -