Complainant had a weak case but panelist determines it’s not reverse domain name hijacking.

WIPO just handed down decisions for two cases involving domains used for selling contact lenses in Mexico.

David Guerra Flores filed the cases against Carlos Perez for pupilentes.com.mx and pupilentes.com. Both cases were resolved by panelist Reynaldo Urtiaga Escobar, who determined that Flores did not prove that Perez lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

However, the panelist failed to find Flores guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, suggesting that perhaps Flores felt some vindication when he “overturned” a trademark Perez had for Pupilentes.

Maybe that’s how Flores felt, but the facts in this case are rather disturbing.

Flores says he came up with the idea for a contact lens site called Pupilentes way back in 2002, but his plan to use the name was “thwarted” by the respondent when the respondent registered the domains in 2003.

As a result, Flores says he was forced to register alternative domains such as 01800pupilentes.com, mispupilentes.net, and pupilente.com.

OK, first thing — the guy was “thwarted” when the respondent registered the domains and had no idea that Flores was concocting his idea?

Second thing — All of the domains Flores claims he had to register as alternatives weren’t even registered until 2008 or later. Did it take him 6 years to bring his idea to fruition?

All of the alternative domains forward to Pupilentes.mx, which itself wasn’t registered until 2009.

Meanwhile, Perez was using the domains he registered for a contact lens site, according to the decision.

I think panelist Escobar was just a bit gun-shy to find a case of reverse domain name hijacking. Or perhaps his contacts were a little blurry while he was writing his decision.

Company goes after site selling Angry Birds merchandise.

Rovio Entertainment, the company behind the wildly popular Angry Birds franchise, has filed its first ever domain dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The company is targeting the owner of AngryBirdSite.com and AngryBirdsmart.com.

As of right now, AngryBirdSite.com resolves to a web site with an AngryBirdsMart logo that sells products emblazoned with Angry Birds designs. It sells shoes, iPhone cases, keychains, hats, alarm clocks, etc. AngryBirdsmart.com resolves to a page that says the domain has expired (even though it appears to have about a year left on its registration).

The whois records for both domains show a common owner in China.

You can bet that the goods are either unauthorized or the seller is unlicensed, hence the UDRP action. Although UDRP handles cybersquatting cases and not the sale of counterfeit goods, it’s a useful tool to take down such a site when the site uses the trademark in its domain.

Respondent argued EA was short for Education Assistance.

Fashion brand Giorgio Armani has lost a domain name dispute with a South Korean group over the domain name EA7.com.

Armani sells a line of sports clothing under the EA7 name. It appears that the EA7 brand was around prior to the domain registrant acquiring the domain name in 2010.

However, the domain owner argued that it registered the domain because it stands for its business name “Education Assistance”, followed by the lucky number 7. A World Intellectual Property Forum panelist determined that Armani had not proved the domain was registered in bad faith.

The whois record for the domain has included an email address that included educationassitance (sic) since 2011.

He might hold onto it if he gets a divorce.

Occasionally a UDRP is filed that’s part of a family feud.

Earlier this year I wrote about a how a guy filed a UDRP against his brother.

Now here’s another one: a man filed a UDRP against his ex-son-in-law.

According to the complainant, his family gave him his last name as a .com back in 2002. But apparently his son-in-law had actually done the registration and did it in his own name.

Later, the complainant’s daughter got a divorce, but her ex-husband held onto the name.

The panel refused to decide the case on the grounds that there were legal settlements between the respondent and his ex-wife, as well as potentially ongoing legal disputes.

I guess this is a variation on not letting your web hosting company register your domain in its own name…

Company files case against Roy Messer’s Snug.com.

iPad case maker lost a UDRP for Snugg.com last year. Now it is going after Snugg.com, a case it should lose for the same reason: Snug.com was registered in 1999.

Consider Charon International Trading Limited, makers of The Snugg iPad cases.

The company owns TheSnugg.com, and desperately wants a shorter domain.

So in February it filed a UDRP against the owner of Snugg.com. The UDRP was dead on arrival since the company just registered its trademark in 2011 and the owner of the domain registered the domain in 1999. The owner of the domain didn’t even respond to the case and still won.

Undeterred, the company has now filed a UDRP against long time domain investor Roy Messer for his domain Snug.com.

I’m serious. You can’t make this stuff up.

Like Snugg.com, Snug.com was registered in 1999.

In the last case the panel didn’t find Charon International guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. Hopefully this time around they will, as now the company has no excuse for filing a case like this.