The Alexander family asks court to overturn decision to transfer JustinAlexander.com.
In 1999 Gary Alexander did something that was rather forward looking for the time: he registered his family members’ names as .com addresses. He registered his own name, GaryAlexander.com, domains for his sons, JustinAlexander.com and JaredAlexander.com, as well as one for his wife, DianeAlexander.com.
Two years later a wedding dress designer called Justin Alexander started up.
14 years later, the wedding dress designer filed a UDRP for the domain JustinAlexander.com…and won.
The decision by National Arbitration Forum panelist R. Glen Ayers was very bad. It seemed that Ayers was swayed by the fact that the whois record on the domain changed from time to time during the past 14 years. Gary Alexander outsourced the management of the domain, and then kept it under a couple of his company names for a while.
Still, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the domain was registered by Gary Alexander for his son. In 1999. Two years before the wedding dress designer claims rights to the mark Justin Alexander.
Justin Alexander, Inc. (the wedding gown company) really went out on a limb in its assertions. I love this one:
If, as Respondent argues, the disputed domain name is for his son, then the domain name rationally should be developed because Respondent’s son is graduating from Washington State University with a degree in entrepreneurship this year. Complainant states that it “defies credibility that someone studying entrepreneurship in college would not make use of a website associated with his name.”
Defies credibility? Maybe the guy is busy studying and enjoying college.
The panelist seems to understand that we’re talking about someone’s name here, but decides that other facts of the case warrant a finding that the domain should be transferred:
Ordinarily, the Panel would find that a human being has a right to the use of his own name; that is not the case here. Justin Alexander has never used the name; even if he is the beneficial owner, the lack of use, use by another, and all of the other facts does not justify a finding of “rights in the name.”
I guess Justin, who must have been about 10 at the time the domain was registered, should have fired up FrontPage and designed his own web site one afternoon after he road the bus home from elementary school
Or is it that Justin is psychic and knew that someone would start a wedding gown company called Justin Alexander in a couple years, so he urged his dad to register the domain?
What a joke.
I should note that Ayers has denied many complaints as a panelist…which makes the result here even more surprising.
UDRP was designed to handle clear cut cases of cybersquatting. This is obviously not one of those cases.
Now the Alexander family is having to spend more money to halt this poor decision by a National Arbitration Forum panelist. It has filed for declaratory relief in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.
It’s sad to see a family get bullied like this.
Abdu says
Another hijacker boarding the Internet plane.
Mike says
Well let us hope that he manages to set the decision aside. Meanwhile I sweat whilst I await a decision myself.
windy city says
…I sure hope that the decision gets reversed, as it sure stinks to high heaven…
Nat Cohen says
Panelists should start exercising discretion and limit transfers to ‘clear cut’ cases of cybersquatting, which the UDRP was intended to combat.
When panelists use phrases like ‘on the balance of probabilities’ then the dispute clearly isn’t a clear cut case of cybersquatting.
Here the Panelist drew dubious conclusion based on non-use-
“Failure to make use of the name is also critical in this analysis.”
and also found that even if initially registering the domain wasn’t in bad faith, renewing it was.
This is stretching the UDRP much further than it was intended to go.
Panelists need to learn restraint.
One could also argue that decisions of a 3-member panel need to be unanimous to order a transfer. If an expert neutral isn’t persuaded that the transfer criteria were met, then by definition the case is not a clear cut instance of cybersquatting.
David Gruttadaurio says
I’m fairly new to domaining. So I have to ask: Who the hell are these people? Week after week I read about travesties of injustice just like this one. It appears that facts carry no weight – it looks like it’s totally subjective based on the panelist(s) personal opinion. Are there no written guidelines for these people to follow?
Tamar says
David, you are a lucky guy with a last name like Gruttadaurio. I don’t think you will have this problem anytime soon.
I registered my kids’ names (David, by the way) with their middle names to avoid such issues. Also, because the other domains were taken!
But to answer your question: people have no decency. This is UDRP abuse in the finest. Can’t believe they won this too–that is implicit approval of this kind of UDRP abuse.
David Gruttadaurio says
Tamar… thanks for reply. Apparently UDRP views domainers as the enemy. I guess the better my names get, the more at risk I become.
Ira Zoot says
John Berryhill successfully defended one of my domains I had registered some 4 + years before this business trying to hijack my domain even considered changing it’s name. The complainants lawyer attempted to make his case by calling me a “psychic cybersquatter”. That I “obviously” knew at the time of registration and bought it expressly to sell to them. John tore the claim to pieces. 🙂 I’d rather not say the domain but if John reads this thread and wants too he is welcome too. There is no limit to the morons out there and the stupid things they will say and do to get what they want.
Sueko says
Terrible and unjust outcome. I hope the court awards the Alexander family legal fees after it overturns what I think was an incredibly stupid decision. Where do they find these arbitrators? The problem is not limited to NAF either. WIPO has M. Scott Donahey who similarly, in my opinion, has made far more than his fair share of HORRIBLE decisions.