Persona.com survives second UDRP from different complainant
Persona.com successfully defended — for the second time.
If two completely different complainants file a UDRP against the same domain name, doesn’t that kind of show that it’s a common generic domain?
Persona.com was first hit with a UDRP back in 2006 by The Eye Academy of America Ltd. and Total Vision Eye Care Group, P.C. It won the case as the panel determined:
The Panel finds that common generic words are open for registration, and thus, Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in a domain name comprised of a generic term.
That determination did not stop a new complainant, Max Mara Fashion Group, S.r.l., from filing a case for the domain this year. In the decision just handed down, the new panel decided:
Lastly, Respondent argues that a prior UDRP panel has decided that Respondent’s use of the domain name was legitimate. See Eye Acad. of Am. Ltd. v. Ashantiplc Ltd., FA 644205 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 6, 2006). The present Panel agrees with Respondent and finds that the use of the domain name for dating and personal advertisements can indeed be a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Max Mara was apparently frustrated that the domain’s owner, Ashantiplc Ltd, would not accept a four figure offer for the domain name.
(It’s also good to know that Sahar is alive and well.)
Ashantiplc was represented by John Berryhill in this most recent case.