Respondent tried to buy the domain from the complainant, but ended up buying it from Web.com after it expired.
A company that spent $16,000 to acquire the domain name Nightscaping.com can keep the domain name, a World Intellectual Property Organization panel has ruled.
According to the decision, a company called Nightscaping previously owned and used the domain name, as well has had trademark rights to the name. That business eventually shut down and offered its intellectual property for sale.
At the same time, the respondent in the case had been trying to acquire the Nightscaping.com domain name but was unable to directly purchase it from the complainant. The domain name was registered at Network Solutions (a Web.com company) and eventually expired. New Venture Services Corp (another Web.com subsidiary) took over the domain name registration and sold it to the respondent for $16,000 at the end of 2015.
The complainant argued that it inadvertently let the domain name expire.
The three-person WIPO panel determined that the facts suggest the domain name was not registered in bad faith. However, it said this convoluted case could be better suited for court should there be a dispute about what transpired with the trademark and domain name lapse.
Jamie Zoch says
“New Venture Services Corp (another Web.com subsidiary) took over the domain name registration” aka Warehoused the domain. It’s funny how they sell “most” expired domains on NameJet but keep many of the goodies for later profit of something they do not own. It is also well worth to mention that Web has never put public claim that they own New Venture Services Corp but I have expressed many times and shown deep proof they do own it and use it to warehouse domains. Also to note, warehousing domain names is not against the law, but it should be IMO as it is an unfair advantage.
168168 says
Completely agree.
Berners-Lee reiterated his concern that the web could be balkanised by countries or organisations carving up the digital space to work under their own rules, whether for censorship, regulation or COMMERCE.
As I understand, the original intent of a Registry was a “contract to manage” the data base applied to a creative commons platform, The Net. Not to claim/pay for “ownership” and set whatever reg fees they want and provide “early access” for those that can pay more and “hold” domains for greater than aggregated “out of pocket costs”
Too many times “bad faith” is only applied to a person who legitimately purchased a domain on the open market and without actual evidence of intentional bad faith use.
Today, there are Premium Name lists, Reserved name list and ICANN Reserved Lists, and I’ll pay to keep certain domains out of circulation services. In bad faith of the original intent to “manage data”.”Carving up the digital space to work under their own rules.”
Access needs to return to a level playing field and the “data managers” restricted from “holding” domains available , and restricted to drop auctions starting at standard or “cost” reg fees.
Good work Jamie.
“inadvertently let the domain name expire” This doesn’t work for anybody else why should TM holders be exempt ? Especially after it was available and sold at market !
Thank you Andrew for highlighting cases like this.
A similar case at NAF for AATI.com under review. It will be interesting to see if the result is the same.