UDRP filed against two letter domain Yu.com

Are Yu serious?

A UDRP has been filed against the owner of the two letter domain name Yu.com.

The case was filed by Two Way NV/SA at World Intellectual Property Organization.

It’s unclear who owns the domain. It has been protected by Moniker whois privacy for the past two years. Prior to that it was protected by NameView privacy, which means there may be a connection to Kevin Ham. The most recent non private registration record I can find at DomainTools is a 2006 record for Yuki Morimoto.

I’ve run multiple searches on the complainant’s name and can’t find anything about it.

I’ll keep you posted on the results of the case.

In a separate “acronym” domain case just filed, Nvia Gestión de Datos S.L. filed a complaint against Marchex over NVIA.com

Tags: ,


Comments

  1. David
    December 11th, 2012 | 9:57 am

    According to a record of domain whois histroy from Domaintools.com, YU.com’s owner may be c/o Nameview Inc. The owner had the domain before 2010-10-18.

  2. Lori
    December 11th, 2012 | 10:05 am

    Colin Yu, former Kevin Ham’s partner.

  3. Jay
    December 11th, 2012 | 10:05 am

    It is 17+ years old domain name. What the hell? YU can mean anything.

  4. John Berryhill
    December 11th, 2012 | 10:22 am

    Video evidence that Yu is confusingly similar…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4lYcN6zEY

  5. Jay
    December 11th, 2012 | 10:34 am

    Is this first two-letter-dot-com UDRP case?

  6. David
    December 11th, 2012 | 11:21 am

    UDRP is now more focusing to monetize their business in order not to be fair for the entire of the domain industry.

  7. Frantisek Mrazek
    December 11th, 2012 | 12:46 pm

    There was LH.com, won by complainant (Luftwafe)

  8. Jay
    December 11th, 2012 | 1:06 pm

    @Frantisek – FMA won it back (http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa/fma-v-lufthansa-amended-complaint.pdf), but then I believe Lufthansa bought it for real $$$

  9. Frantisek Mrazek
    December 11th, 2012 | 2:16 pm

    I know but only the fact they lost and had to fight it in court is absurd. Someone not so well off could not have deffended it in court perhaps. Those (deleted) were always thieves…

  10. Jay
    December 11th, 2012 | 3:43 pm

    @Frantisek – Yes, you are right. We have seen a lot of wrong UDRP decisions.

  11. John Beeryhill
    December 11th, 2012 | 11:44 pm

    DW.com – an early RDnH case. Deutsche Welle v Diamondware

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