Domain name expired after company was put in administration.
National Arbitration Forum panelist Neil Anthony Brown has ordered the domain name Bid.tv transferred.
The story of this domain name is interesting. It was used by UK company Sit-Up Ltd (trading as Bid Shopping) for many years. That company was put in administration (similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy) last year. Earlier this year, an entity called Bid Shopping Limited acquired the intellectual property, including domain names, of the company.
However, Bid.tv expired after Sit-Up went into administration. The domain name was registered by the respondent, who lives in China.
Bid Shopping Limited filed the UDRP to recover the domain.
The domain name owner did himself no favors by not responding to the complaint. However, I still question the decision to transfer the domain name in this case. I’m especially surprised to see this decision from Neil Brown, who tends to favor with respondents in many cases involving generic domain names.
Mike says
Having read the UDRP decision and researched a little bit, it appears not exactly as presented IMHO. The company Bid Shopping Ltd was not formed until 4th February 2015 . “A” Trade mark UK00002375777 EXPIRED in October 2014, but by some amazing method it appears to have then been assigned to Bid Shopping Ltd in or around 9th March 2015 . It therefore must surely not be corrected for the Decision in the UDRP to say “Bid Shopping Ltd” has used the trade mark since 2004 since clearly they did not and could not have.
Steve says
It’s a GENERIC name and was purchased legitimately in the aftermarket. What is wrong with Neil??? Has he lost his mind?? Why is he giving away generic domains that were caught on the drop or aftermarket legitimately??
Mike says
This part of UDRP is what I believe is wrong, if it was worded like this in the complaint, I quote from the UDRP Decision;
“”The first issue that arises is whether Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it can rely. Complainant contends that it is the registered owner of the BID.TV mark and that it has used the mark as part of its business as a television shopping company in the UK. (United Kingdom Trade Mark No. UK00002375777, registered April 1, 2005)…”
END QUOTE
I highlight the part of above “…is the registered owner of the BID.TV mark and that it has used the mark as part of its business as a television shopping company in the UK” END QUOTE
The FACTS are that the Complainant company was formed on 4th February 2015. The sole director is listed as ” Grant Dean Miller” who actually in the
UDRP complaint is referred to as the Representative of the Complainant NOT as the sole director of the complainant company . Maybe to try and look more
“Official” as being represented ?. Furthermore the trade mark it relies on actually expired in October 2014 but under a special dispensation was allowed to be restored in February 2015 and then assigned to Bid Shopping Ltd in March 2015. Yes it is the owner of the trade mark since March 2015 but has not ITSELF used such mark as appears to have been claimed in the UDRP complainant according to the decision.
Steve says
More evidence that this kangaroo “arbitration” system is a joke.
Mike says
If anyone can contact the rightful previous owner then perhaps Andrew you can put him in touch and I can suggest a legal course he may take to try and recover the domain name !. IF, and I say IF because I have not read the complaint as filed, Brown was misled as to the facts, i.e. that Bid Shopping Ltd did not refer openly and honestly to ALL the facts as stated by myself THEN there will likely be a cause of action to recover the domain name.
RayJ says
Why is it the responsibility of the defendant, even if they are not present to have facts shown? I know I’m asking the same things as anyone else is, but a ruling such as this just continues to show there are no rules which are followed in these cases. Say something and see if the panelists takes the bait.
We need oversight over the panelists to check out their pocketbooks. I’m not calling out this panelist, but let’s be honest. We might as well call the UDRP process FIFA.
C.S. Watch says
I keep hearing Neil A. Brown described as this winsome woodland creature, but Brown’s SUNEVA.COM decision is via “retroactive bad faith.” That is simply damning.
In SUNEVA, a pre-dating Registrant (Serbian refugee, family-business solar installer) had years of good faith use. Complainant offers to buy domain, then talks fall through. Registrant puts up a site with a French contact phone number and the two words “dermal filler” (same field of trade), but completely different color and logos. (The decision makes it sound like he copy-pasted their logos–he didn’t, and that would obviously have been much easier.) Complainant does not trade in France. This maneuver was unflattering, but blocking TM in another country is also a standard business practice.
The Complainant still does not trade in France. Or use SUNEVA.COM as their company domain. Nice. Registrant could have kept the name goodwill of his family business, or he could have sold his domain to one of the large “suneva” entities who formed after his registration.
People have the right to read the law and extrapolate the consequences of their actions. It took framers from multiple disciplines ages to hammer out the ACPA and the Policy language. If you think you can do better, then you shouldn’t be a judge/arbitrator.