with that arrangement?
Poor Edible Arrangements. All it wanted to do was swipe the domain name EdibleBrands.com. But it didn’t count on the respondent calling John Berryhill to pick apart the case.
Now that food-instead-of-flowers company Edible Arrangements, LLC is getting big, it’s apparently creating a new brand or umbrella company called Edible Brands. It filed for a trademark for “Edible Brands” in January 2009 using a “first used in commerce” of the same date. There’s only one hurdle to its plans: it doesn’t own EdibleBrands.com.
The company decided to play its hand with domain arbitration. Most complainant lawyers would pass on this case, citing that the domain was registered four years before the trademark was even used. But the company got creative: Incredibly, it decided that it had rights to the term “Edible” as it refers to food products. (Seriously, read the decision).
Since “EdibleBrands.com” is nothing but Edible Brands’ supposed “edible” trademark, plus the word “brand” and “.com”, the company made the argument that it should get the domain.
If there’s one person you can’t get B.S. past, it’s John Berryhill. First, he took so-called Edible Brands through the wringer, arguing that Edible Brands is not a holding company for Edible Arrangements nor its trademarks. Oh, and the owner of EdibleBrands.com owns lots of similar ___Brands.com domains, showing that it didn’t register the domain with the non-existent trademark in mind.
Edible Brands made another big mistake, and it’s one I’m seeing more and more often. A company approaches someone about buying a domain. The domain owner responds with a price, and then the company cites that offer as proof the domain was registered only for resale. When it files for arbitration, it neglects to mention the offer was in response to the complainant’s inquiry. Imagine how the arbitration panel feels when it finds out it’s being duped by the complainant.
The panel decided that “Edible” wasn’t confusingly similar to “EdibleBrands.com”. Even though the panel was not required to, it also decided to find that the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Photo from EdibleArrangements.com
Rob Sequin says
Great news for the registrant and John. Congratulations and thanks for fighting for us all.
I hope this article gets some main stream media coverage and Edible is embarrassed by their behavior.
Maybe I’ll keep sending flowers 🙂
Johnny says
Yeah…..but again…..where the hell is the reverse domain hijacking cliam.
It seems that the panelists and lawyers (Berryhill included) does not ask for a reverse domain name hijacking ruling anymore.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I am seeing.
This is a total b.s. case just like a few others recently…..but they complainants are not held liable.
This has to stop!!!!
John Berryhill says
“It seems that the panelists and lawyers (Berryhill included) does not ask for a reverse domain name hijacking ruling anymore.”
Typically, the panels ignore such requests. There was considerable bad faith behavior by the Complainant well beyond that documented in the decision, and which was most assuredly pointed out to the panel.
The UDRP requires panels, in all cases, to consider whether the complaint was brought in bad faith. UDRP providers are competitive entities, and do not encourage chastisement of their customers – i.e. the UDRP complainants.
Edible Franchisee says
Tariq Farid (CEO Edible Arrangements) tries to use the American Legal system to his advantage at every turn. He is a dishonest, unethical criminal who tries to hind behind his so called religious faith. He tries to build a mosque in the middle of a residential neighborhood in CT and when the neighbors cry foul, he claims that his religious freedoms are being trampled by a ‘Sad Agenda” against islam. He continually rapes his franchisees with new fees, mandatory purchases from vendors he owns and unreasonable and unsustainable business models. As EA staores are closing all across the country, he claims the system has never been stronger. He is a snake oil saleman, its as simple as that.