Panel orders valuable domain name transferred.
A three-member National Arbitration Forum panel has ordered the domain name ZT.com transferred in a cybersquatting complaint.
The case pitted 投诉人为 The Zippertubing Company (以下简称“投诉人”)vs 被投诉人为 wangxinguang(以下简称“被投诉人”).
The decision is in Chinese, and Google translate is a little rough. But this does not appear to be a case of domain theft, so it’s amazing that the panel found this domain name was registered in bad faith.
We’re talking about what could be a seven-figure asset here, and also a two-letter domain that can be used for many purposes. The burden of proof must be very high.
I’ll let one of my Chinese readers shed additional light on how the panel came to its decision, but this one will likely be talked about for a long time to come.
Meyer says
I am sure the present owner will hire a U.S. IP lawyer to fight the case in Virginia Federal court. Considering the value of the domain, even if he does not have a strong case (I don’t know), he will need to fight the UDRP decision.
I guess Stevan Lieberman’s phone (in Wash, DC) will be ringing soon.
John Berryhill says
Since the registrant and the registrar are both in China, the UDRP Mutual Jurisdiction is in China.
Mike says
Please someone tell me, WHY would someone “locate” a valuable .com anywhere but Germany ?. If you knew the laws of Germany you would understand why I say this .
Steve says
Please explain.
Peter Müller says
The German Supreme Court consistently rules that there is no claim to get a domain name transferred under German law. Therefore, you are able to prevent the implementation of UDRP decisions under 4(k) of the Policy in probably all cases. We saved xm.com that way back in 2009 (UDRP decision: http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/861120.htm; German court: https://openjur.de/u/141119.html).
John says
Why would he of not had John B. as his lawyer on this domain right up front to begin with? Wow.
Jens says
Scary stuff this, really scary! It will be interesting to follow. Please keep us updated!
Thomas says
If the decision was published in chinese it means that the panel was chinese. I guess these guys got a nice little kickback!
Andrew Allemann says
The big issue here is that a domain investor gave a really weak defense. Should they have lost? No. But had they put a bit more knowledge into their defense, this case would have been easy fo rthem.
John Berryhill says
Yes.
This was a defensible case, but the domain investor simply did not know what they were doing. They have another two-letter case pending, and are probably going to needlessly lose that one too.
Graham says
This will go to Virginia ~ VaED.
Fortunately for us Domain Name Registrants, we have #ICANN’s bespoke .COM Funded Globetrotter; and #IPC {former} member, Brian Winterfeldt on our side!
Brian’s quoted in @TBOtweets Article, knowledgeably citing / referring to / identifying the Jurisdiction & Venue for ~ all ~ .COM Domain Names as Virginia Eastern District Court by way of:
Acme Billing Company v. Doe.
Case No. 1:14-cv-01379.
http://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/article/domain-name-theft-knowing-where-to-turn
Within the Filing, it states: … “jurisdiction and venue are proper in this district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(C) because the .COM and .NET domain name registry, VeriSign, Inc. (“VeriSign”), is situated in this judicial district, and the Defendant Domain Names are all .COM or .NET domain names.”
That established, why is the American based ADR Forum publishing in Chinese?
Like it or not, the International Language of Commerce is English, and so too is the primary language of the American’s.
Perhaps Brian will do the case Pro Bono !!
Naturally, as a gesture of his giving “Thanks” to all the “.COM” Domain Name Registrants, who’ve funded his lavish #IPC travels, with many thousands of “OUR” R[r]egistration fee dollars, by way of ICANN.
Ivan Rasskazov says
Eventually they will need to provide a streamlined process for UDRP appeals. Should the U.S. leave that to the D.C. Patent/IP court?
In the meantime, ICANN is looking for volunteers for the UDRP Review Group. (just a friendly reminder)
yes says
where?
Graham says
ICANN are so corrupt & crooked they allow CentralNic to violate the RAA’s 3.7.7.9. resulting in Consumers being “dotCONNED”.
See @Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/sep/10/money.efinance
INTA & US Trademark Attorneys should be asking ICANN hard questions:
i.e. Why can a “.COM” Domain Name Registrant “mediate” between their own revenue clients; and an enterprise who’s Mark, Trade Name & Trademark within “.COM” is clearly being Infringed, Diluted & Blurred.
As #ICANN’s recently former #IPC member Brian Winterfeldt identifies, via Acme Billing Company v. Doe. Case No. 1:14-cv-01379. “.COM” = VaED, so ending ICANN’s UDRP program should be simple; and done.
But of course ICANN are powerless … because CentralNic have self ordained themselves with an ADRP, as structured by WIPO, long ago.
John Berryhill says
The worst part, though, are those little radio transmitters they plant in your head in order to spy on your thoughts.
Joseph Peterson says
Seems there’s an unmet need for Chinese legal experts specializing in UDRP defense. If they exist, then maybe there’s an awareness gap. This domain owner ought to have sought them out or vice versa.
Hard to imagine this case could be lost except as a result of corruption or inadequate representation.
Andrea Paladini says
As far as I can infer from the English (poor) translation, IMHO the biggest mistake of the Respondent was not getting a strong legal representation, since this was definitely a defensible case.
It appears that Respondent was unable to explain his reasons the right way, that’s why a good IP lawyer would have certainly helped him to retain the domain.
Graham says
Hi John Berryhill:
I’m not the only one to observe CentralNic!
History records, You too remarked on CentralNic, as per:
RE: [registrars] Status report on single letter domain names
To: “‘Bruce Tonkin'” ,
Subject: RE: [registrars] Status report on single letter domain names
From: “John Berryhill”
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:02:16 -0400
In-reply-to:
You remarked: “outfits as Centralnic, which sells 3LDs in .com domains (e.g. .uk.com)”
……
“in order to prevent registration of “confusingly similar” 3LD’s beyond
the grasp of ICANN policies, those in a position of more power than
understanding of how the DNS actually works, managed to slip the “no other
TLD-like things as a 2LD in a new TLD” rule into all new registry contracts”
Unlike You though, I’ve not $crounged from ICANN to Glob-trot, effectively muting my observations; and stoping CentralNic from Diluting & Blurring “.COM” with ISIC “cc” codes before the “.COM” Domain Name that ICANN & NTIA say can’t be Infringed.
As you may know, but conveniently forgotten … CentralNic way-back in 2000 never made the “official” leap from “.com” Domain Name Registrant to New gTLD, during the ICANN meeting in Japan.
We can thank [3] established & current ICANN’ers from the Founding IPC of 1999 for letting CentralNic begin e~VaEDing the ACPA.
> https://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/constituency_groups.html
Where INTA noticed CentralNic “MIMICKING ” ccTLDs long ago, in 2001; and did nothing to defend Mark, Trade Name & Trademark Holders, what are you going to do to stop CentralNic from violating the ACPA as
Sub-Cybersquatters and Racketeer’s ~ here and now?
https://books.google.ca/books?id=6JRBAQAAIAAJ&q=centralnic&dq=centralnic&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
John Berryhill, what are YOU going to do, to #StopFAKES?
Cheers, Graham.
thelegendaryjp says
A “real” def. is likely as simple as a bigger bribe. Keeping valuable names in China and expecting fair practices LOL Maybe ISIS will open a rar soon too, would be a good place for Christians in the middle east to keep their domains.
C.S. Watch says
This is not a Chinese incompetence problem. This is a panelist Sebastian MW Hughes problem.
Lead arbitrator: Sebastian MW Hughes.
(Australian. Hired gun of the HKIAC.ORG, founded by Hong Kong business.)
Other two ‘panelists’: David Kreider (American). Kenneth L. Port (American).
Decision in English: http://tinyurl.com/z3km8rb.
The ADR Forum accredited Sebastian MW Hughes, and is liable for foreseeable economic loss in light of this panelist’s insupportable decisions:
Contravening a solid wall of precedent, Hughes transferred CANARY.COM in 2013. Domain returned to owner.
He transferred BIBI.COM in 2014. Domain returned to owner.
He transferred BANCO24HORAS.COM in 2014. Domain returned to owner.
Those parties had to fight to reclaim their valuable stolen property at great difficulty and expense. But not at Sebastian MW Hughes’ expense. Though he might well afford it, since the HKIAC.ORG cap for his hourly is $840 US. What other opportunities and fees flow to him subsequent to ‘unorthodox’ decisions like those above?
And just how ludicrous is this rogue bogan’s decision on ZT.COM?:
1. Zippertubing is a US company, exerting rights to a .com based on USPTO trademark registrations. The UDRP precedent here is long-settled. (String cite re three-letter URLs: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1566.) Hughes knows the values at stake, since his overturned decision on the valuable seven-figure CANARY.COM name was widely decried. (Inherent value data: mostexpensivedomain.name. Even silliness like BANANA.COM sold last year for 2M USD). Hughes now strips ZT.COM? It is inconceivable that after CANARY.COM he didn’t ‘look in’ on current market values on industry sites. This year’s published sale of TP.COM for 1M USD would have been informative. If a panelist is being widely criticized by both camps, and if the value of the domain has been estimated at 783K USD in the complaint, and if you don’t check into actual inherent value unrelated to the mark at issue, then it is because it is not in your interest to do so. Hughes’ stock in trade is feigned ignorance.
2. Zippertubing knew exactly what they were doing with this theft. The multi-million dollar asset ZT.COM was registered in 1996, and was previously owned by Cincinnati Bell Telephone. Then it comes into play in late 2015. Brokerage Flippa.com takes notice, and estimates in the ‘seven figures’ are flying around. https://flippa.com/5171664-zt-com. Readying for their attack on the domain, in January 2016 Zippertubing changes the main logo on their homepage from Zippertubing to ZT. (https://web.archive.org/web/20150811043224/https://www.zippertubing.com/ changes to https://web.archive.org/web/20160316142940/https://www.zippertubing.com/.) Zippertubing sells an obscure B2B product and ZT is one of 32 registered trademarks held by them. There is no targeting—Cincinnati Bell wasn’t targeting their obscure industrial hose product in 1996. There are 91 USPTO registrations for ‘ZT,’ and 319 ‘ZT’ brands in the WIPO global brand database. There are 76,000,000 ZT results on Google, and the first ten pages returned (at least!) are devoid of any mention of complainant.
3. The Respondent’s mortgage field of trade is the same as Intelend.com, Lend.me, DomaintotheBank.com, etc. It has nothing to do with B2B hoses. http://zt.com/images/about_tu.jpg, zt.com. Why would the registrant even know of Zippertubing—he couldn’t have found out about them on Google, that’s for sure.
If panelist Sebastian MW Hughes thinks observers can’t use Google Translate, nor tell the difference between rousting nickel-and-dime Chinese typosquatters and Hughes’ disingenuous handoff of yet another million-dollar asset, then he and the ADR Forum need to be sued to attention immediately. Both registrants and mark holders benefit from the UDRP—neither side wants it destabilized by self-serving exploitation.
Nat Cohen says
Great comment. Thanks.
Graham says
ADR Forum is crooked, aiding and abetting CentralNic’s SUB-DOMAIN NAME Cybersquatting & Racketeering.
Why must a “.COM” Domain Name Registrant “mediate” with another?
ADR Forum’s costly “solution” equals Racketeering, endorsed as ICANN Accredited for their services.
Of course this scam was originally constructed to e~VaED the ACPA in Switzerland at WIPO, compliments of Francis Gurry; and now thanks to ICANN’s IPC .COM funded, globetrotter Brian Winterfeldt #BS’ing the Court the problem continues.
To bad for Brian, he’s going to be sued for Perjury & ADR Forum for Racketeering, under NAFTA, in Canada.
Cheers, Graham.