Featured Domains

register.to

Resin.com: Another UDRP That Shouldn’t Have Been Filed

Company files claim for domain name registered 12 years before it started using the “trademark”.

Here’s another case of a domain name owner having to respond to an egregious UDRP complaint.

Paper Denim & Cloth, LLC filed a complaint against VertMarkets, Inc. to get the generic domain name Resin.com. The complainant admitted that it just started using the mark “Resin” in 2010 and that VertMarkets registered the domain all the way back in 1998, but still filed the case.

So the case is already dead, but it gets better. VertMarkets is in the B2B market and registered a bunch of domain names back in the days related to various industries. It even registered the domains with CSC Corporate Domains, a brand protection registrar. But Paper Denim & Cloth, LLC, represented by Gary H. Fechter of McCarter & English, LLP, made a quite incredible argument:

An industry has developed in which companies, such as the Respondent’s, use domain names not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining fees. For these companies, an offer to buy the domain name is a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy the domain name. If the offer to buy is not to the company’s likeness, the company denies it, and sits on the domain name until a more lucrative offer comes along. Respondent is one such company. Respondent is not using the domain name and has no plans to use it. Respondent is waiting for the right number to come along, but as he waits, the Complainant, a bona fide owner and user of the RESIN trademark, cannot use his RESIN trademark as a domain name.

Wow.

VertMarkets won, but this is another example of egregious abuse of UDRP. The respondent didn’t ask for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, but the panel should have considered it anyway.

The most in-depth analysis of the global domain market

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. DR.DOMAIN says

    Indeed.How dare VertMarkets try to profit from it’s foresight & ownership! :-0 I mean-that would be like Paper Denim & Cloth seeking to profit from selling you a pair of 200 dollar jeans that costs them 8 dollars to produce.Oh wait…

  2. Jeff says

    Good lord… I own epoxy.org, so this story really got my attention!

    Seriously, though, are they f-ing kidding?! Makes me think I should sue my neighbor. He bought a piece of vacation property that has plummeted in value. He never uses it, and is only holding on to it in hopes that real estate prices recover. Some nerve that guy has…

  3. Ramiro Canales says

    A trademark holder does not have exclusive rights to a generic domain name. A domain name is valuable real estate on the Internet, and, like land, it increases in value over time. I would not be surprised if a federal court action is filed under the AnticybeSquatting Protection Act.

  4. Ramiro Canales says

    A trademark holder does not have exclusive rights to a generic domain name. A domain name is valuable real estate on the Internet, and, like land, it increases in value over time. I would not be surprised if a federal court action is filed under the AnticyberSquatting Protection Act.

  5. S says

    More and more it appears this system is just used to take money for any reason and waste legitimate generic domain owners money and time.
    I checked the definition of parasite…
    An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host……hmmmm.

  6. John Berryhill says

    The floodgates have been further opened to this sort of thing by panelists who have muddied the waters.

    In an attempt to catch a bit more “bad behavior”, the line between a facially frivolous complaint and a reasonable complaint (whether meritorious or not) has been badly blurred.

    By jettisoning what had been considered among the few “bright line” rules in terms of chronology, the signal has gone out that the terms of this “lightweight administrative procedure” are malleable and open to evolving interpretation.

    I don’t think it is fully appreciated how this sends a signal to certain elements of the bar that the new rules are “anything goes”.

  7. Zak says

    @ Andrew

    Thanks for censoring post again, anything that threatens anything of truth about your sponsors,etc …

    The same same ole UDRP round and around,
    and the foxes are whining about it!,huh

    So, Mr Big Shot Mouth pieces,as officers of the court why don’t you petition the court OR ICANN on behalf of clients, and end this revolving door or would that be killing the goose that laid the golden egg …
    at 5K PLUS a POP.

  8. David says

    “An industry has developed in which companies, such as the Respondent’s, use domain names not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining fees” –

    Yeah, sort of like the legal profession. I was going to register the domain name GreedySleazeBag.com but it appears the plaintiff’s attorney has beat me to the punch.

  9. Mitchell Stabbe says

    Just as it may seem absurd to have filed this case in the first instance, it would be absurd to use it as an example of the general practices of trademark owners.

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