Baby Products Company Loses Battle Against Bisexual Web Site

Baby products company loses fight with bisexual dating site.

UPDATED: Lamprecht AG, which owns the bibi brand of childrens products, has lost its attempt to get the domain name bibibaby.com. What makes this even more interesting is that the domain name was originally registered for a bisexual dating site.

The owner of the domain name stated that she registered the domain name because “‘bibibaby is in fact a word play in English referring both to bisexuality and to the well known song ‘Byebye Baby'”. She provided proof of the domain name’s use for a bisexual dating site when she registered it back in 2002. The web site had bugs and was removed about a year later, and the domain name no longer resolves.

Although everyone agreed that the complainant has a mark for bibi, the WIPO UDRP panel found that the domain owner has rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name, and that it wasn’t registered in bad faith. Further, the complainant appeared to have only brought the complaint after failing to buy the domain name. Also curious was Lamprecht’s registration of Bibi-Baby.com just a week before filing the complaint.

With regards to reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Alistair Payne wrote:

This is a classic case in which the parties operate in separate fields of activity and where the Respondent has acted independently and legitimately to register the Disputed Domain Name for a real business activity. Although, the Complainant may be concerned that people might, at least initially, associate it with the Disputed Domain Name or with the Respondent, the Policy was only designed to address circumstances of cybersquatting and not complaints of possible tarnishment. Although the Complainant appears to have sat on its hands for a number of years it only initiated this Complaint after the Respondent failed to respond to its attempts to acquire the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Panel is not satisfied that the Complainant was aware at the time of filing of the Respondent’s initial website and business offering. Accordingly the Panel declines to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.