Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • iPad case maker loses dead-on-arrival domain dispute

    1. BY - Apr 02, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    Company filed trademark application last year; domain was registered in 1999.

    iPad case maker just wasted some money in a domain dispute.

    It filed a case against the owner of You’ll get a chuckle out of the company’s contentions in its UDRP complaint:

    2. Complainant registered the SNUGG mark (Reg. No. 4,075,899 filed May 17, 2011; registered December 27, 2011) through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”);

    3. Respondent registered the domain name on September 14, 1999;

    Hmm, what’s wrong with this picture?

    The owner of the domain didn’t bother to respond, but the panelist still determined that had no case. The panelist didn’t consider finding reverse domain name hijacking, although this is a classic case of someone filing a UDRP dispute in bad faith.

  • Hey, let’s give them a link out so they will see referrals coming in from this article.

  • Nice example of how and should go. Common sense prevails. Domain owner didn’t even have to respond and still won. It shouldn’t have to be more complicated than that.

  • Have these case makers never heard of the Snuggie?

  • Actually the sad part is that IP lawyers advise their clients to try and hijack domains via UDRP, even when they have no case, just because it’s cheaper than paying for the domain.

    It’s only going to get worse with the URS.

    Every registrant should pay 25c per domain to ICA or any other agency, just like they do to ICANN, to fight crap cases like this in courts and make sure that there is a price to pay for filing frivolous UDRPs.

  • When will the panelists start having some balls and handing out penalties for reverse highjacking attempts. It is ridiculous.

Leave a Reply