Panelist’s decision doesn’t add up.
A recent National Arbitration Forum decision for MovieInsider.com has me scratching my head. Is it another case of a cut-and-paste panelist? You decide.
The complainant owns TheMovieInsider.com and successfully won MovieInsider.com. The complainant argued (in panelist’s words):
Complainant claims that it has used the THEMOVIEINSIDER.COM mark since July 2, 1999. Complainant registered the themovieinsider.com domain name on September 10, 2000.
Come again? The complainant was using the mark TheMovieInsider.com for over a year before it registered the domain name?
Where it gets more confusing is the question of what the registrant of MovieInsider.com was doing with the domain name.
First, the panelist writes:
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services…
OK, but the very next paragraph reads:
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of receiving click-through fees is not a bona fide offering goods or services…
Then again under the “registration and use in bad faith” header, the first paragraph reads:
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not making an active use of the disputed domain name…
And the second paragraph reads:
Since Respondent receives click-through fees from the links displayed on its resolving website, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the sponsorship or affiliation with Complainant…
Oh, and MovieInsider.com was registered a couple months before TheMovieInsider.com.