Displaying posts tagged under "reverse domain name hijacking"
Company abused policy to try to deprive rightful owner of CountryGirl.com domain name.
LML Investments, owner of Country Girl branded clothing sold at CountryGirlStore.com, has been admonished by a panel for abusing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The company filed a cybersquatting complaint against PA Gordon, owner of CountryGirl.com. The case was filed despite Gordon having owned the domain name since well before LML Investments claims any trademark rights in the “Country Girl” mark.
A three person National Arbitration Forum panel determined that LML Investments did not make even a prima facie case in support of its arguments that Gordon lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. It was also unable to prove he registered the domain in bad faith, given that he registered it before the trademark rights.
The panel wrote:
The Panel finds that Complainant and its counsel have acted inappropriately and in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute and continuing with it following the delivery of the Response by Respondent. Complainant is attempting to deprive Respondent, the rightful, registered holder of the disputed domain name, of its rights to use the disputed domain name. Complainant and its counsel should have known that they would be unable to prove at least two of the elements needed to prevail. Even a cursory review of the URDP and UDRP decisions would have alerted Complainant and its counsel to the fact that its case was devoid of merit.
LML Investments was represented by Continental Enterprises, an intellectual property firm that claims on its website to “use non-traditional strategies to combat infringers domestically and around the globe to provide effective solutions for seemingly intractable IP problems.”
Gordon isn’t the only person the company has gone after in trying to enforce its “Country Girl” trademark.
Ari Goldberger of ESQwire.com represented the domain name owner.
“Ah, Puket, let’s file this case and hope they don’t show up.”
Clothing company IMB Textil S.A., which uses the domain name puket.com.br, has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) for trying to steal Puket.com through UDRP.
Frank Schilling parked the domain name Puket.com, an alternative spelling of Phuket in Thailand, and it showed links related to to island.
IMB Textil filed the UDRP after initiating purchase negotiations with Schilling, likely through DomainNameSales.com.
Schilling did something smart. …Click here to continue reading.
“Baseless” complaint was a “foolish waste of time”.
Three related hair care products companies have been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking after trying to steal the domain name Verb.com through a UDRP.
Verb Products Inc., Verb Hair Products Canada Inc., and Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. filed the complaint with the assistance of law firm Conkle, Kremer & Engel, PLC.
The three person WIPO panel that heard the case said it agreed with the first statement in domain name owner Richard Bloxham’s response, which read:
This Proceeding is a foolish waste of time involving a dictionary word in which the Respondent has a decade of seniority over the Complainant’s junior claim in hair care products.
That quote came courtesy of Bloxham’s attorney, John Berryhill. …Click here to continue reading
Case contradicts prior rulings involving the same complainant, but the panelist in the other cases probably got it wrong.
Clearwater Systems of Akron, Ohio, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
It’s a decision that might make the company scratch its head in light of two recent victories using UDRP.
WIPO panelist hands down RDNH ruling.
Every once in a while I read a UDRP involving organizations in a world I simply didn’t know existed.
Such is the case in The American Association of the Order of St. Lazarus, Inc. v. Thierry Villejust over the domain name SaintLazarusUSA.com.
The complainant was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in the case.
The respondent is “a member of the governing council of the Orleans obedience and serves as the Grand Bailiff of the Grand Bailiwick of the USA which engages in charitable activities in the United States through a nonprofit organization, Saint Lazare USA, Inc. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2011 his capacity as Grand Bailiff of the organization.”
According to the respondent, both his organization and the complainant represent two obediences of the ancient “Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem” and each have used the names and symbols of the Order for centuries, beginning in the 11th century. Both parties claim their origins with the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, an order of chivalry founded by crusaders in the 11th century.
(You can read more about it on Wikipedia.)
The respondent notes:
Respondent’s organization has roots in one faction of the Order. That faction has at times operated under the auspices of the Royal House of France, initially through the 1800s, after which time it operated without that protection. In 2004, when the Royal House of France resumed its protection, the Order split, resulting in more than one obedience. Respondent represents the US arm of an obedience that operates under the auspices of the French royal house known as the “Orleans obedience,” while Complainant apparently represents another branch of the order known as the “international Malta obedience.”
That’s some rich history.
Panelist Debra J. Stanek ruled in the respondent’s favor on all three elements of the UDRP.
Stanek found the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking on four grounds:
- Although Complainant did establish ownership of US federal trademark registrations containing terms used in the disputed domain name, it did not provide any support for its claim of unregistered or common law rights in its
domain name or ownership of an international registration for LAZARUS and did not persuade the Panel that either of the marks that it did own was confusingly similar to the domain name.
– Complainant either knew or should have known, at the time of filing the Complaint, that it was not the “only legitimate organization” to use the name “The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem” since the crusades.
– Complainant either knew or should have known, at the time of filing the Complaint that Respondent was affiliated with an organization that had rights to use the name “The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem” and other indicia related to the Order.5
– The allegations of the Complaint were largely unsupported by facts, evidence, or argument and omitted material information regarding the history of the Order, and other pertinent facts that were, or should have been known to Complainant.