The never ending stretch of confusing similarity.
National Arbitration Forum panelist Jonas Gulliksson has determined that the “Report a rip off” is confusingly similar to “Rip-Off Report”, and has ordered ReportaRipoff.net transferred to the owner of RipoffReport.com.
Now, if what the complainant in this case states is true, it’s clear that the registrant of ReportaRipoff.net crossed some bounds that were sure to land him in hot water. But I have a hard time getting past the confusing similarity of these two terms.
In explaining how these two terms are similar, Gulliksson writes:
The registered trademark of the Complainant is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the addition or, as in this case, the omission of hyphens is irrelevant under the Policy 4(a)(i). Further, the inclusion of the letter “aâ€ and the reverse order of the words are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
That’s a lot of exceptions, but let’s run with it, especially if Gullikson can give some good examples from previous cases. But that’s where I get confused.
His first example is Easyjet Airline Co. Ltd. v. Harding, where a panel found that easy-jet.net was confusingly similar to EASYJET. OK, so the same words in the same order with an added hyphen are confusingly similar. But what about backwards?
Example two is Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., which concluded that classicmetalroofing.com was confusingly similar to “Classic Metal Roofs” because changing the final term of the mark from “roofsâ€ to “roofingâ€ was a minor alteration.
I don’t see what the latter case has to do with the present one in which a word is added and the two key terms flipped.
I guess I don’t know where this stops. Perhaps I’ll file a UDRP against DNJournal. After all, it’s the same thing as Domain Name Wire except it abbreviates “Domain Name” and uses Journal instead of Wire, which could be considered similar.