Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • survives UDRP

    1. BY - Feb 12, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 10 Comments (plural) failed to show it had trademark rights in its descriptive name.

    Although there are many benefits to using a good descriptive domain name, there’s also a drawback: other people can use similar domains, too.

    That’s the case with, which just lost a UDRP against the owner of

    The complainant failed to show that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights since it couldn’t show any sort of trademark rights in

    This would be like someone using (for selling lemons) going after the owner of or

    The majority of the panel was unimpressed that the complainant’s initial filing failed to mention that its trademark application was denied. Only once this was brought up did the complainant make a supplemental filing explaining that trademarks can be denied for a number of reasons — yet not disclosing why its application was denied. In its supplemental filing it also tried to make the case for a common law mark. The majority of the panel would not consider this additional evidence since it should have been disclosed in the initial complaint.

    The complaint included copies of the website. The panel noted that nowhere on the site does it claim a trademark on the term, and in fact “Businesses For Sale” is used in its descriptive sense immediately below the logo.

    One panelist, Richard Page, dissented and said the complainant showed common law rights that were sufficient for a UDRP.

    That’s why it’s usually best to go with a three person panel.

    The respondent was represented by John Berryhill. UDRP

  • Berryhill is a winner. Doesn’t hurt that the claimant is wrong too.

  • Hats off to John B. , Great news for generic domain name holders… Looks like a reverse domain name hijacking attempt to me.

  • So were is the rdnh??? The complainant has the crappy name and try’s to STEAL the better GENERIC name. This is a kangaroo and apparently one of the panelists is PURE kangaroo. Common law rights? I have “cars.whatever” so I think I should go after…. pathetic people.
    Disgusting that the respondent even had to respond. It looks like a windfall for lawyers.
    Lucky for the respondent he had one of if not the best Pitbulls on his side.

  • tries. oops got excited. :)

  • It stated the respondent registered the domain in 2010. It looks like she purchased it from Marchex in 2010.
    And, Ultimate Search registered it in 1999. The same year “BusinessesForSale” purchased their domain.
    Marchex had ppc links on the domain for years.

    What took them so long to bring this UDRP? (Laches)
    Or, did they figure they didn’t want to pick a fight with Marchex’s deep pockets but the new owner would be an easy mark?

    • The complainant probably felt provoked by the registrant. The complainant alleges the registrant was copying its business and reaching out to its clients to sign up for

      • Copying it’s business? If I sell cars on cars.whatever than it looks like I have a shot at claiming because they are selling cars and reaching out to people that want to sell cars. Or better yet if I own and go after based on the complainant’s logic should be mine.
        Major waste of registrants $$ and time. Shameful people and system.

  • This should go on

  • Make that and more coffee please…lol

Leave a Reply