Company wins three character domain dispute.
After losing a UDRP for the generic domain name LH.com to airline Lufthansa, Future Media Architects (FMA) has won a case against credit heavyweight Equifax for EFX.com. FMA claimed that Equifax decided to come after the domain name because it saw FMA had lost a couple other acronym domain name cases:
Complainant delayed bringing this action for five years and only brought it when it appeared that Respondent had become an easy target after a few unfortunate and wrongly decided UDRP decisions, two of which are subject to review by US District Courts.
Equifax (NYSE: EFX) uses EFX as its stock ticker on the New York Stock Exchange.
The panel found that FMA did not register the domain name in bad faith. It found that FMA did not target Equifax by registering the domain name. FMA is well known for acquiring generic two and three character domain names without any regard for which companies may happen to have the same acronym. Also, the company goes on record saying it never sells domain names.
FMA asked for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The panelist denied the claim, citing in part that Equifax attempted to contact FMA prior to filing the UDRP:
Complainant has shown it has some unregistered rights in the EFX mark. Given the evidence that a letter was unfortunately sent before this action to someone who had left Respondent’s counsel’s law firm and was not received by Respondent, Complainant was effectively denied the chance to discuss matters with Respondent prior to issue of the Complaint. Although Complainant has not explained why it has taken so long to bring a Complaint the Panelist is not prepared to say Complainant brought the Complaint in bad faith. The Panelist is not prepared to make a finding of reverse disputed domain name hijacking.
It is hard to believe that any one business thinks that it can solely lay claim on an acronym!
If you do a Google search on EFX you come up with almost 5,570,000 matches. Not all of them apply to Equifax.
There are many, businesses, products, services etc.. using this acronym- just like LH.com.
I am glad that a just decision was made in this case!
The LH.com decision is thievery … just unreal. It will be overturned. The EFX case was equally absurd and tested the integrity and logic of the deciding panelist … who happen to pass. Reverse Hijacking would/should have been found by any number of other panelists. EFX is NOT “IBM”. As pointed out by Kelly (above), there are a multitude of entities that can associate with EFX, and Equifax trying to claim exclusivity shows that greed is alive and well in America. Never cease to be amazed. These types of cases (acronyms, generics) should be waning by now as they are inherently very weak, but some WIPO and NAF panelists appear to be easily confused.
By the way, what’s the eligibility criteria for becoming a UDRP “panelist”? I’m almost afraid to know the answer.
Very puzzling someone would lose a domain such as LH.com. The domain name could be shorthand for an infinite number of businesses.
These decisions negatively impinge the integrity of the entire process. There probably needs to be an overhaul of the criteria used to pick these panelists.
Way to hang tough FMA.Equifax tried to bully & got that jaw jacked.
A Dot-Com is a world TLD, not U.S. It is curious that these bandits would go after the world domain when they don’t even own the .US version. EFX.us is presently for sale.
Any entity that goes after a world TLD without owning a WIPO international trademark under the Madrid protocols should be ruled ineligible immediately by WIPO panels.
To think that a U.S. stock exchange ticker symbol could be the basis for world TLD asset theft is beyond nonsensical.
Just think of the consequences of a win there… a company anywhere in the world would theoretically have the right (albeit “unregistered”) to claim world TLDs !!!
Madness.
WIPO should immediately rethink their UDRP decision guidelines, if any exist, as a matter of urgency.
It can’t be left to the whim of untrained panel members, there’s too much at stake.
Andrew,
Can you follow up on your post with an article on UDRP panelists? It looks like we are all wondering the same thing about credentials….
I wonder if Traverse Legal would know anything?
Kelly, I’ll ask Enrico and Traverse if he can write an article about it.
Did FMA lose the case in court ? LH.com is now owned by Lufthansa.
http://whois.domaintools.com/lh.com
Noted the LH.com decision hasn’t been overturned, as http://www.lh.com takes you to http://www.lufthansa.com
This subject has caught my attention. What I’ve read piqued my interest in Future Media Architects. Anybody know anyone with FMA? I’d like to meet him or her.
http://www.fma.com
-Lynda
Oh hey, did anybody ever answer the question posed a couple years back asking what is the eligibility criteria for becoming a UDRP panelist? I’d like to know as well.