Online pharmacy argues “Rugs” is merely a typo of “Drugs”.
fire your lawyer in the morning.
Here’s an interesting UDRP case from National Arbitration Forum.
The company that runs CanadaDrugs.com, a popular online pharmacy, filed a complaint against the owner of CanadaRugs.com, which is a parked page featuring links for rugs.
CanadaDrugs.com tried to argue that the owner of CanadaRugs.com was typosquatting:
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its website and Canada Drugs Marks and that respondent has merely removed the letter “dâ€ from the spelling of the word “Drugsâ€ in the Domain Name. Complainant also submits that this omission of the letter “dâ€ constitutes typosquatting and that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in an effort to take advantage of internet users’ typographical errors. Complainant argues that this alteration is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from its own domain name and registered marks.
Hmm. Did it not occur to their lawyers that “Rugs” is a word?
The links on CanadaRugs.com are clearly unrelated to drugs, but the complainant argued that the parked page was a sign of bad faith intent to profit on the “typo”.
The panelist found that the two domain names were not confusingly similar for this reason. He then considered the last two elements of the UDRP “for completeness”, finding in the respondent’s favor. But for some reason he neglected to consider reverse domain name hijacking, even though the respondent asked for it.
The kicker? CanadaRugs.com is available for purchase on Sedo for only 500 EUR.
Nice decision, except for the glaring lack of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH)finding.
The obvious lack of RDNH findings in so many UDRP cases is great example of how the UDRP process is designed and geared towards appeasing the Complainants and keeping the UDRP filing fees rolling in.
I think that the NAF and WIPO will eventually find themselves in the same position they found themselves in with their credit card arbitration scheme in Michigan in which they agreed to stop arbitration for credit cards since they were found by the attorney general to be corrupt in favor of the credit card companies.
The NAF and WIPO can’t keep playing how they want forever. Both must either be stopped from practicing arbitration on domains, or by regulated themselves.
Something has to change.
Just because of this I’m not going to buy any Canada drugs.
daily visitor says
The point you make that they should have bought it from Sedo is valid.
Why spend $ 1,500. in filing fees plus the lawyer fees ($ 2K to $ 5K) when it would be a guaranteed ownership by paying $ 681?
I assume they wanted to set a legal precendent regarding typos of their domain.
Haven’t they already done that with other cases?
(I didn’t check)
I guess they figure buying the domain is like paying extortion??
Andrew Allemann says
@ daily visitor – They probably didn’t think to check. After all, they didn’t notice that the current owner of the domain isn’t the same as the original one.
M. Menius says
After reading your very first paragraph, I knew exactly how this case should be decided. RDNH would have been a fitting conclusion too.
Adam Strong says
Sold these guys a domain ages ago. I considered them savvy then. Maybe new leadership. This is pathetic.
I doubt that Sedo auction is even legit. Knowing that whois and having made offers on his names before I know that it won’t be accepted, but I’m testing that theory right now 🙂
Adam Strong says
that was quick. . . he must be reading this post
03/11/10 Seller´s Counter Offer: 75,000 EUR
Sellers like them are twats when they advertise for a low amount and then do a ridiculous counter offer,need their balls kicking in.
Balls kicking in is a little harsh lol. Maybe a gentle kick up the bum.