Casinos.org owner can keep domain but panel fails to find RDNH.
As a follow up to an article on Domain Name Wire back in June, the owner of Casinos.org has successfully defended his domain name in a UDRP case.
Cedric Rimbault of Rungis, France, registered a French trademark for Casinos.org and registered the c-a-s-i-n-o-s.org domain name. He then tried to buy the domain name Casinos.org for as much as $9,000. When the owner asked for $115,000, Rimbault filed a claim against him, claiming the domain name infringed his trademark rights.
Unsurprisingly, the panelist found in favor of the respondent. With an argument like this, it’s no wonder:
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to his CASINOS.ORG mark, and that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name compounds the confusion, since the Complainant uses his mark to advertise casinos over the Internet. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has made no effort since acquiring the disputed domain name “to develop a real Websiteâ€, does not own a corresponding trademark, and thus has no right to and no reasonable interest in the disputed domain name.
But here’s the amazing part. Panelist William R. Towns basically punted on the question of reverse domain name hijacking, writing:
While the Panel has determined based on the facts and circumstances before it that the Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the third element of the Policy, the Panel is not persuaded that the Complainant acted in bad faith in invoking the Policy in this case.
Johnny says
Somebody ought to make a documentary about WIPO and the NAF for posterity’s sake.
Documentation of the inept/corrupt, or whatever it is, organizations needs to be shown for all to learn from.
Jim Fleming says
The .CASINO top-level-domain continues to grow. It started many years ago.
Will http://Chicago.CASINO be at the Old Post Office ? (just sold again) or on the closed Meigs Field, closer to the convention center ?
The IOC decision will be soon.
Karen Bernstein says
Here is another classic example of a panelist unwilling to rule in respondent’s favor on RDNH. The Panelist even cites the standard, which says that RDNH will be held against complainant if it used the arbitration procedure in “bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name?” Clearly, look at the dates of the so-called French trademark application and the date casinos.org was registered and anyone with two eyes would see that casinos.org has priority and is using the domain name descriptively.
In this case, the Panelist may have been taking it easy on the complainant since he was not represented by a lawyer, but if he were I would hope that there would be such a finding. When a lawyer signs a document in US courts he or she is certifying that they have made a relevant investigation of the facts asserted in a complaint and can be subject to sanctions (including disbarment) if he or she brings a case that lacks merit. In a UDRP proceeding there is no such thing! I believe that there should be a provision in the ICANN Policy holding lawyers to a higher standard when they sign their name at the end of a UDRP complaint or any document in the procedure. This could serve as sort of a deterrent to the many greedy lawyers out there looking to bill as many hours as possible to their clients.
John Berryhill says
Here is the advertising material for Mr. Towns’ firm:
“Attorneys with Novak Druce have successfully brought UDRP actions before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and have obtained domain name transfers for their clients. In addition, Novak Druce is fortunate to have an attorney trained and qualified as a UDRP arbitrator for WIPO. This brings a unique perspective to UDRP actions brought on behalf of our clients.”
The notion that a firm might represent Respondents in UDRP actions is simply anathema to most of the IP legal community. Towns’ firm clearly conveys the perception that Mr. Towns appointment as a UDRP panelist provides an advantage of some kind, “a unique perspective”, in the process of filing UDRP actions to “obtain domain name transfers for our clients”.
What do you want them to say?
“Oh, by the way, our partner the UDRP panelist will accuse a UDRP complainant of acting in bad faith by filing a post-dated French trademark application for a domain name the complainant knew it didn’t have.”
Hell no.
Stephen Douglas says
I love John Berryhill… in a manly sort of way.. wait…that sounds wrong…so wrong…
All I know is that his brain works logically and like an AI supercomputer, but my brain sees his points instantly and hasn’t disagreed yet…
About that “love” part… ummm.. borrowing from SNL:
“DA BEARS!!! HOW ABOUT DEM BEARS!!!”
(Sorry John – excellent comment on “Mr. Towns”… and sub rosa, pitchfork to the heart of the subject!)
Casinos PH says
I have to agree with the ruling and decision on Casinos.ORG. The respondent has the right to keep Casinos.ORG – the complainant is an opportunist. First time I heard the term “reverse domain name hijacking” and this is very apt for the situation.