Company that uses atproperties.com wanted the “domain hack”.
Illinois real estate company @Properties has failed to get the domain name AT.properties in a UDRP.
@Properties uses the domain name atproperties.com, and also registered atproperties in multiple top level domains, including .cc, .condos and .rentals.
But it neglected to pick up at.properties when it became available.
Profile Group, the company that registered at.properties, said it registered it because it was short and AT is the country code for Austria. It has also registered at.business, at.school and at.ventures.
It’s worth noting to those that think that the top level domain should be ignored in a UDRP, that this simply isn’t the case. It has generally been ignored in the past because it has been irrelevant. It’s no longer irrelevant.
Still, the facts in this case led WIPO Panelist W. Scott Blackmer to determine that there was no evidence the domain was registered in bad faith.
“The Panel simply does not find compelling evidence in this proceeding of an intent to create a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain (or of an intent to engage in any other bad faith activity)….
…While the Complaint refers to “national” services, the Complainant’s website indicates that these are focused on the Chicago area and parts of adjacent Midwestern states. The record does not establish that the Complainant’s marks are highly distinctive and widely known, like the TELSTRA and VEUVE CLIQUOT marks in decisions cited by the Complainant, such that good faith reasons for registering the Domain Name cannot be conceived. The Respondent plausibly argues for the generic value of “at” as a short string (whether or not used for specifically Austrian content) and points out that the Respondent registered other domain names consisting of “at” in other new gTLDs not specifically related to the Complainant’s field of activity (such as at.business and at.school) around the same time, supporting its contention that it was not targeting the Complainant’s @PROPERTIES marks.
The record does not support a persuasive inference that the Respondent (not active in the real estate industry) was likely aware of the Complainant and a potentially confusingly similarity with the Complainant’s @PROPERTIES trademarks. The Respondent denies any intent to trade on the Complainant’s reputation, and on the existing record the Panel cannot conclude that the Respondent is likely prevaricating.
David Yang (@davidnyang) says
There is always someone who is trying to rob other’s things.
Joseph Peterson says
I can see why the Illinois company imagined the’d been specifically singled out. But they should have asked the domain owner or someone else in the domain industry to get the other side of the story.
Among domain investors, it’s normal to see value in acronyms regardless of any particular brand. In Illinois, “AT” might not mean Austria. But anybody who sees Sedo sales will be familiar with that abbreviation.
C.S. Watch says
1. This filing would be considered inane if the domain were US.PROPERTIES. We’ve mercifully evolved past obtuse US-centric decisions. How embarrassing to assert before the WIPO that Austria’s nine million people have no interest in a place to lay their heads.
2. As discussed in the decision, this complainant does not have an ‘At Properties’ trademark. The USPTO granted them an aid in the utility of the database, not rights in ‘At Properties.’ If the USPTO did not grant them a trademark, clearly the UDRP can’t grant them other peoples’ assets.
3. There is no bad faith use. The parking page mentions neither the Complainant nor any competitor. The phrase on the parking page ‘may be available’ is not the same as a click-thru for anonymous purchase or even a ‘for sale’ notation. That ‘may be’ phrasing is an alert that the domain isn’t presently for sale, or that trademark rights will be examined. Having seen this page, the Complainant strategically chose to file without contacting the Respondent beforehand. Filing before any contact should be recognized in the UDRP for what it is: theft strategy by a complainant who is cognizant that they have no grounds in law. It is an admission of RDNH guilt.
4. Common sense tells us that a ‘two letter’ name in a popular field of trade has some inherent value outside of the Complainant’s use. And predictably, there are many people in the US who presently trade as AT or A+T in property/real estate. In NY, NC, GA, FL, and CO…but one can also look in the UK, CA, and AU, which, much like Austria, exist.
5. This complainant and their attorneys lied in the complaint. In universally comprehensible layman’s terms, they lied in the complaint. It is grating that Blackmer was not more stringent and declarative on this point. Lying in the pursuit of a domain asset in the UDRP is no less than attempted theft by fraud.
Complainant founders Michael Golden and Thaddeus Wong, and their attorneys, Mark VB Partridge and Partridge Partners of Chicago, must be held accountable. One expects illicit behavior from realtors, but we cannot tolerate attorneys who lie before the WIPO. This complainant does not trade nationally. That is a false statement. Their tagline on their homepage is ‘Number one in Chicago real estate.’ And if that is at all unclear, they have maps of the precise geographic scope of their trade right on their website.
Partridge Partners’ site tagline is ‘Intellectual Property Strategists.’ Misrepresentations before UDRP panels are not strategy, they are grounds for disbarment. The Respondent, or anyone for that matter, can file a complaint with the Illinois Bar against Mark VB Partridge here: http://www.iardc.org/.
We saw this same new cancer on the legal profession with Australia’s ’Axis Legal’ in the CHINAREADY.COM dispute (RDNH). https://domainnamewire.com/2016/02/16/domain-name-investor-gets-rdnh-win/. RDNH is a violation of federal law. We need to send in complaints to the attorney’s state bar.
IfSo says
If so, then why no RDNH, WIPO Panelist W. Scott Blackmer? Was it even considered by you? If so, what are your reasons for not deeming this case as RDNH? We will never know and that is the mystery of these many UDRP decisions.
Ideas Person says
I have an idea.
I suggest that the ICANN Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, invite any WIPO/NAF/Czech Forum panelists involved in controversial cases, such as the one above, to account for their reasons why they did not consider RDNH.
Just as an aside, do WIPO/NAF/Czech Forum panelists read this forum, or do they simply feel they are untouchable and aren’t interested. The majority of panelists must surely be honorable.