Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "reverse domain name hijacking"

  • Turkish restaurant chain guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Oct 27, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 3 Comments

    Develi Restaurant chain guilty of abusing UDRP.

    DeveliA restaurant in Turkey has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name develi.com.

    The complainant runs a restaurant chain called Develi and uses the domain name DeveliKebap.com.

    A key problem for the complainant was that Develi is also the name of a city in Turkey. Although the complainant has trademarks including “Develi”, these are figurative marks as part of a drawing.

    In fact, when the complainant tried to trademark a Develi logo in the United States, it specifically disclaimed the exclusive right to use “Develi”.

    In finding the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

    The Panel is troubled by the Complainant’s inability to provide suitable evidence to support its assertions of the extent to which it is well-known, in terms of its case that the Respondent was more likely than not to have been targeting it. More importantly, however, the Panel is concerned by the Complainant’s critical failure to address either in the Complaint or in its supplemental filing the fact that the name “Develi” holds a non-trademark meaning arising from the eponymous city. Instead, the Complainant attempts to rely upon bare averments that it is well-known, vague assertions as to the reach and extent of its restaurant chain with no supporting evidence and an unfounded submission that the Respondent is Turkish.

  • Planet Fitness guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Oct 06, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    …as the company wastes money with a reactive approach to intellectual property management.

    Planet FitnessPlanet Fitness, a chain of over 800 fitness clubs in the United States, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for its attempt to get the domain name judgmentfree.com.

    This is despite the domain name owner not even responding to the dispute.

    Planet Fitness uses the slogan “Judgement Free Zone” for its gyms. I assume that means you won’t be judged for being out of shape there.

    The domain name at issue is JudgmentFree.com without the ‘e’ in Judgement. Planet Fitness apparently has trademarks for both spellings of the term, which is odd since that would require they use both spellings in their marketing. Click here to continue reading…

  • Owner of CountryGirlStore.com guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

    1. BY - Sep 15, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 8 Comments

    Company abused policy to try to deprive rightful owner of CountryGirl.com domain name.

    Country GirlLML 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.

  • Frank Schilling gets reverse domain name hijacking win on Puket.com

    1. BY - Sep 12, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 10 Comments

    “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.

  • Reverse domain name hijacking of Verb.com in a “Foolish waste of time”

    1. BY - Sep 09, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    “Baseless” complaint was a “foolish waste of time”.

    Verb-logoThree 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