Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

MIA.com Saved in Arbitration, But Who’s This Lazy Panelist?

MIA panelist is MIA.

The owner of MIA.com has successfully defended her domain name from an attack by Mosaic International, LLC. But the panelist in the case seemed more eager to submit an answer and get his check than to pay attention to the issues.

Mosaic International has a line of hair accessories and appliances marketed under the MIA brand. It started using the brand in 2004 and filed a trademark application for MIA in 2007.

The owner of MIA.com registered the domain name in 1995, nine years before Mosaic started using the brand in commerce and twelve years before it filed a trademark application. As such, Mosaic necessarily failed to prove the domain name was registered in bad faith.

National Arbitration Forum panelist Karl V. Fink obviously found that the domain name wasn’t registered in bad faith. But he copped out of the rest of the decision. The domain owner requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, which was certainly a winnable argument in this case.

But Fink denied the charge, only writing that RDNH had not been proven by the respondent. Perhaps if Fink had bothered to submit a finding on the first two charges of the complaint (similar to trademark, rights or legitimate interests), he would have seen how egregious this case was. I understand that a panelist doesn’t have to make a finding on each topic if he finds in favor of the respondent, but I think that was in order here given the plausible case of RDNH.

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.


No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions

Comments

    Leave a Comment

  1. Zak Muscovitch says

    Theoretically, it should be just as hard, or just as easy, to make a finding of ‘bad faith registration’ as ‘reverse domain name hijacking’. Both involve the civil standard of a ‘balance of probabilities’, and both involve a finding that on the facts, it is probable that the name was registered in bad faith Or the complaint was brought in bad faith.

    So, one would think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but it is very seldomly so in UDRP’s…We see very few cases of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and the refrain of many panelists is that ‘this is not a suitable case for RDNH’, or ‘RDNH wasnt proven’, or ‘its a close one but not prepared to make such a harsh finding’…

    A panelist should be prepared to make a finding of RDNH with the same gusto and considerations as with bad faith registration….

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: