Non-profit wins three letter domain name in highly questionable ruling.
The non-profit Disabled American Veterans has won the domain name DAV.com through arbitration at National Arbitration Forum. The organization’s main web site is DAV.org.
This case gives me great consternation.
The truth is, the owner of the web site appeared to use all sorts of whois identities. And, a couple years ago, the domain name did show ads for veterans benefits. But none of these details are put forth by the complainant in its arguments, or at least it isn’t conveyed in arbitrator Bruce E. Meyerson‘s decision. To hand over a three letter domain name, a panelist should require a strong burden of proof from the complainant. That doesn’t appear to have happened.
What is most concerning is how the arbitrator came to the conclusion that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith:
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the dav.com domain name with the primary intent of reselling it for a substantial profit. Although the Respondent denies this allegation, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s assertion is reasonably supported by the record. Respondent has made no use of the domain name other than as described herein. The record indicates that Respondent owns 800 additional domain names, and previously has been found to be in the business of selling domain names for a profit. Grow.net, Inc. v. Walter Long d/b/a Domains.com, WIPO D2001-0902 (Oct. 22, 2001). Thus, the Panel concludes that a reasonable inference from the record is that Respondent registered and continues to use the domain name with the intent to sell it and accordingly has done so in bad faith under Policy
The case referred to by the panelist was for Grow.com. Grow.net, Inc. filed for arbitration to get the domain name from the respondent and lost. But naturally, the respondent offered to sell the generic domain name to Grow.net. As far as Meyerson is concerned, if you try to sell a generic domain name, then it can be inferred that all of your domain names were purchased with the intent to sell them. Further, simply offering to sell a domain is enough proof that you registered and used the domain name in bad faith, even if the domain name didn’t target the complainant, by Meyerson’s logic.
Proving that this domain was registered specifically to target Disabled American Veterans rather than simply because it was a three letter domain would be very difficult. Indeed, I doubt the domain was registered with the Veterans in mind.
You have to wonder if this case has to do more with the panelist being concerned about the explicit content hosted at DAV.com than the facts of the case. It also shows continued inconsistency amongst panels when it comes to three character domain names.
Jamie Zoch says
Did this Bruce character just crawl out of a hole? Has he not heard of domain names selling. Wow!
This is some scary stuff for domain name owners, when you read stuff like this.
Johnny says
You watch….. a class action will arise from all of these nonsense judgments and the NAF will have to pay up, close down, or both.
Truthfully, a RICO lawsuit needs to be brought against them and others.
UDRPtalk says
This case reminds me of the recent COMPART.COM case:
http://www.udrpsearch.com/case/D2009-0462
It seems like the UDRP’s intollerance is growing as time goes on…
Mansour says
What concerns me the most about this decision is that it gives the appearance that the domain name after-market is illegitimate business, and those who are buying or registering domain names for future use or as an investment, are being looked at as cyber squatters dealing in bad faith. The only voice I hear concerning this controversy is from your website DomainNameWire.com. It is time for the major players in the aftermarket like Sedo, Afternic, BuyDomains, DomainSystems and others to speak up and legitimize the business, rather than selling domain names for 6 and 7 figures and getting their hefty 20% commission, without getting involved or giving assurance to the buyer that the money he or she spent was not for potentially damaged goods. They need to stop hiding and selling domain names that could be deemed ‘Questionable Trademark Infringing’ regardless if they are generic, three-letter domain names or anything else, since it appears that all domain names regardless of their classification, are considered by the Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights and others as domain names that are a potentially up for grabs to any trademark holder. Many of those trademarks were registered many years after the domain names were registered. We need to have a clear overall clarification on what to purchase from the secondary market and what not to purchase, rather than carrying on our business by the slogan ‘buy at your own risk.
DAV.org, however it is an abbreviation for the Disabled American Veterans, could also be an abbreviation or initials for hundreds of businesses or individuals worldwide.
hideyourdomains says
Very scary decision. Investing in generic domain names as one would invest in premium real estate should NEVER be considered bad faith. Bruce Meyerson is a dangerous idiot. Individual’s like this need to be removed from these posts, they are the criminals, imo. This whole system needs to be corrected before more damage and investments are lost. Scary stuff. I guess I could head over to anyone of the auction or brokerage sites, pick a domain and go after it?? NONSENSE.
Domain Investor says
Had he used the services of an IP lawyer, I bet he could have kept the domain.
“NA, NA” surely didn’t help.
Chris says
“To hand over a three letter domain name, a panelist should require a strong burden of proof from the complainant.”
You are wrong. A LLL.com should never ever be transferred no matter what the argument. It is as silly as transferring a NNN.com
UDRPtalk says
Given DAV’s victory, I guess “disabled” really doesn’t mean “unable”…
D says
We need MOB to enter domain business. Few panelists dead later they would be more careful about such decisions…
Stephen Douglas says
OMG.
What about domain development now? Build your domains but be careful of how you represent your prodservs or someone may “link” it to a myriad of other companies who can claim to own the intent of your domain. whuuuuut?
These decisions by ICANN put the whole of the domain community under suspicion… everyone who invests in domains should be up in arms about ICANN’s comments on this ruling.
Very important article, DUB-A
Fred says
It is my understanding that the Disabled American Veterans has owned those 3 letters (DAV) for decades as a registered trademark. Like IBM, there is a branding of those 3 letters associated with the organization. Additionally, I know that the DAV tried repeatedly to contact the site owner to purchase the site; he refused to even return calls. In this case, justice definately prevailed.
Andrew Allemann says
Fred, when you work for Disabled American Veterans you should probably identify yourself rather than use a bogus email address. The owner of the domain had no obligation to return your calls.
Domain Investor says
Quote –
“It is my understanding that the Disabled American Veterans has owned those 3 letters (DAV) for decades as a registered trademark”
I speculate less than 1/1,000 of 1% of the global population knows the term DAV. And, it is only known by a small portion of the U.S. population. They might possibly know the full name of the organization but not the abbreviation.
I’m located on the east coast of the U.S.
And, if I asked my college educated daughter what does DAV mean, she wouldn’t have the faintest idea.
This is a clear case of domain-hijacking.
bernard says
You said:
if you try to sell a generic domain name, then it can be inferred that all of your domain names were purchased with the intent to sell them.
This is especially true for those having 1000s of domains! Lol.
Mike says
This case is another perfect example of organizations using trademark law as a “back door” to obtain a desired domain name. It would be one thing if this retired judge was consistent with his decisions. Other cases, he decided rightly on.
If I ever want to get an equitable domain name, I’ll spend the $500 to get the trademark and then hope I get Meyerson to deliver my domain for the $1500. NAF fee. Sweet domains are now available for $2000.
Also, has anyone considered that maybe Meyerson has a Veterans in his family, or has a bias? If so, he should of recused himself.
I feel for the original registrant of DAV.com. He got a raw unjust deal.