Cadbury Wants a New Ocean on Web for Swedish Fish

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

Candy manufacturer wants domain name SwedishFish.com.

Cadbury Adams, maker of the tasty red Swedish Fish candy, has filed for arbitration with World Intellectual Property Organization to get the domain name SwedishFish.com. Cadbury Adams currently uses the not-so-memorable domain name AfriendYouCanEat.com for its Swedish Fish web site. It also owns OriginalSwedishFish.com.

The SwedishFish.com domain name’s whois record is currently protected by whois privacy, but a record from February shows the owner to be a man in Wisconsin. The domain was registered back in 2001, and the current owner has held it since at least 2002. The domain name is parked at eNom and shows ads offering Swedish Fish candy. It was parked at Sedo for part of 2008.

If Cadbury gets the domain name it may help it sell more Swedish Fish in the future. Just filing the case at WIPO has helped it sell another bag of candy; writing this article has made my salivate for the candy right now. Off to the grocery store.

Further Reading:

  1. Fish.com sells for $1M

Tags: ,

8 Comments » - Posted in Policy & Law by

Comments

  1. fred
    April 29th, 2009 | 2:18 pm

    This is an obvious generic. If used right it could give plentyoffish.coma run for their money.

  2. Andrew Allemann
    April 29th, 2009 | 2:34 pm

    Fred – I don’t know if it’s obvious. And the way it’s being used will kill the registrant.

  3. Patrick McDermott
    April 29th, 2009 | 3:31 pm

    Andrew,

    They also own “OriginalSwedishFish.com”
    which redirects to “AfriendYouCanEat.com”

    The WhoIs record for OriginalSwedishFish.com
    is weird and in violation of ICANN WhoIs policy,I believe.

    “Registrant:
    leave unchanged
    DNS Manager
    leave unchanged leave unchanged
    leave unchanged, leave unchanged leave unchanged
    US
    Email: leave unchanged”

  4. Mark
    April 29th, 2009 | 3:58 pm

    Love those jellyish fishy candy things. But why Swedish Fish? They could call em Dutch Fish or Austin Fish and it wouldn’t matter to me.

    Grab me a bag too.

    Mark

  5. Basil
    April 29th, 2009 | 11:03 pm

    its a generic name like tuna fish, salmon fish and etc. I think the owner will get to keep the name

  6. Andrew Allemann
    April 30th, 2009 | 9:21 am

    @ Basil – it *would* have been generic, had the owner not had ads for candy running on it. He’ll lose the domain.

  7. Pokerhands
    April 30th, 2009 | 9:24 am

    It’s not a generic domain …. I can remember as child … decades ago my father coming home with a bag of “Swedish Fish” for us. Ad to that it was showing ads for the candy on the ppc page … while not the deciding factor in many cases I think it will be here. Swedish fish is not something that people would refer too for anything but that candy.

  8. cybele
    April 30th, 2009 | 3:09 pm

    I like that you’re writing about intellectual property law and using a photo you don’t have rights to.

    Oh, wait. No, I don’t like that at all.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/typetive/2676497062/

Leave a reply


Your comment will be deleted if: you use an invalid email address, you use a URL shortener for your web site link, your website link goes to a parked domain name, or your "name" is an advertisement keyword.


TOP