Case filed with World Intellectual Property Organization against Photo.com.
The domain name Photo.com has been hit with a UDRP filing at World Intellectual Property Organization.
According to a 2010 story at TheDomains, Moniker brokered the sale of this domain name back then for $1.25 million.
The complainant is Fotocom Société Anonyme. I’m having trouble due to the language barrier, but it’s possible that this group is associated with the domain name Foto.com. Foto.com is owned by a company called Fotocom.
If this is the case, then this may be one of most blatant cases of reverse domain name hijacking…ever. It’s certainly one of the most valuable domain names to ever be hit with a UDRP complaint.
Interestingly, at one point in 2011 there was a copyright notice on Photo.com stating it was owned by “Photocom”, so there’s a possibility of some sort of connection.
David Yang says
It’s a negative activity in the entire of Internet Industry. Hope the complaint to be failed.
couponpages says
I hope this serves as a wakeup call for big change in the system.
My position is very clear… banish the whole UDRP system. Individual registrars and registrars should simply sell domains on a first come, first served basis. They are not authorities on Trademark laws.
There are already laws to protect Trademark holders. When abuse is proven in court, all they need to do is provide the court order to the registry.
My other position is that there should be a zero cost defense, so that domain owners do not have to pay to defend themselves unless the Trademark owner can document clear proof of abuse. Only after such abuse is demonstrated, the domain owner would be given a chance to defend itself, which may or may not require legal costs.
This is similar to a Grand Jury, where the prosecution doesn’t fully prove guilt, but demonstrates that there is at least grounds for a case.
Anticareer.com says
UDRP System should be:
Pay fee to file a complaint
Pay $10k into Escrow account which you lose in the event they find reverse domain name highjacking.
It’s not that hard to improve the system but it seems like the governing body is happy doing a mediocre job and collecting their fat paychecks.
couponpages says
I like that idea. I would go an extra step. I would say the escrow should go to the domain owner if they lose to compensate them, even without proving Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Simply stated, there needs to be a penalty if you can’t prove the domain owner is abusing your Trademark. Otherwise Trademark owners will continue to bully domain owners who can’t afford to defend themselves.
Kd says
I like this idea too. But i would say $25k deposit. If you lose rhe case $10k goes to the respondent for legal fees. And if a finding of reverse domain hijacking tou lose the full $25k
Rob says
I don’t like the idea at all. Here’s why. The system is already open to a lot of corruption and questionable practices. What makes you think that adding more money into this cesspit of money will make things more fair and less corrupt? A legitimate complainant could easily lose that $10k based on a corrupt decision, and so too could a fraudulent complainant still win the case. More money on its own is not the answer.
Windy City says
…with the arbitrary decisions that the various panels have been handing out over the last cupla years, I would assume that the complainant feels it is a rather small gamble to take to win such a lucrative domain name.
Really, there is little to lose and so much to gain with this present system.
Yes, a change is sorely needed but at the present time all this company did was purchase a “lottery ticket” hoping to get the right panel to rule in their favor. So many companies appear to take that shot because it can work in their favor…
Chuck Biscuits says
What would perhaps wake up the global internet community to the whole UDRP sham would be if Google were to lose google.com to a UDRP because a small obscure business “proves” copyright, trademark, and prior art for the term google, to a single panelist. Or perhaps Google loses by default for simply not replying to the complaint? an Extinction Level Event for the UDRP! – lol
JZ says
something needs to be done to do away with the ‘it doesn’t hurt to try UDRP’ approach. get found of reverse hijacking once, you can’t file another UDRP maybe.
JZ says
Oh and a **mandatory** sizable fine and legal costs covered for respondent.
Robbie says
I find the UDRP process not very stable. In order to make a living these panel members need cases to reside over. As most cases are total BS as above if they simply keep shooting down every UDRP nobody will file. Now we have record people filing, newly established brandable companies going after generic brands, decades after the fact. I am not sure what is going on, but right here someone is taking a $1,500 bet to try and make millions. No words to describe it.
jon says
I wonder if Icann will just give this one away as well? See all you have to do
nowadays to own a million dollar domain name .. is to just pay the Icann
thieves a few hundred dollars and VIOLA!, They will steal it for you.
Sorry for the frustration, but is it me .. or is the domain industry completely
being ripped apart by GREED!? and all of these bottom feeding corrupt
big shot ppl with agendas who think they can buy and sell and re-invent
every single successful .com name ever in existence with a new extention
F***king amaze me with their BS.
God, Im so sick of it! Dont these people realize they are ruining the entire
industry for everyone .. including themselves? To much corrupt B.S. news
coming out of the industry everyday, it ‘s hard to believe they could of
ruined such a good thing.
osxbasedblood says
The UDRP scam, and the scammers who pay the fraudsters to steal their domain for bribery.
Not sure what could be more shameful than everyone involved in this shady business practice.
John says
Not sure who the bigger clowns are here. The company that filed the udrp or those that allow it to occur.
Kobani says
Looked up the European Trademark database and also the USPTO but couldn’t find an exact match on “photo”, or have I missed something here?
Kobani says
Actually, found a trademark for “photo” on the European Trademark database for “Photo” Filing number 011565579 registered in 2013
It is for Coty Germany GmbH for classification: perfumery; essential oils; cosmetics.
Guess it is like Apple having a trademark for “apple” but nothing to do with eating apples.
Mark says
This is another F up case. UDRP is total BS. I am sure this will not end up in UDRP but in a real court.
Ed ward says
Fotocom hit the photo.com domain name because this one were acquired fraudulently by an ex-CEO of Fotocom.
The ex- CEO P. Petropoulos bought personnaly the photo.com domain name while Fotocom was on negociation.
He launched a concurrent website and the domain name were bought with divert money from fotocom company. It’s a scam story and not a IP problem.