Champagne.co becomes first .co domain name case won by respondent.
A complainant has finally lost a UDRP case for a .co domain name.
Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne has lost the case it brought for the domain name Champagne.co.
The decision text hasn’t been posted yet, but this is the first time a complainant has lost a .co complaint at World Intellectual Property Forum since .co was liberalized last year. I’m not sure about National Arbitration Forum since it doesn’t break out cases by top level domain.
The complainant owns Champagne.com, which is forwards to Champagne.fr (unless you don’t type in www, in which case it goes to an Apache test page).
A saving grace for the domain owner may be that the domain didn’t resolve, so it didn’t point to ad links for Champagne (the drink). However, the whois stated the organization was “DotCo Investments”. My guess is this case hinges on Champagne being a location or geo domain.
Update: WIPO has posted the decision, and it’s more interesting than I thought. It seems that the panel questioned the complainant’s rights to the “champagne” mark. The respondent admitted he registered the domain name for the alcohol connotation, but said he didn’t think it was a trademark. The complainant tried to withdraw the case at the last minute, but the panelist declined. Ultimately, he ruled the complainant failed to show the domain is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights.
Good news for the extension. Thanks for reporting, Andrew.
Sounds like time for a drink of bubbly…..champagne! Salute! from DomainRoast……Kev
Quote –
“offered to purchase the Domain Name for a sum equal to the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred in registering the Domain Name,”
I’m not suggesting they pay a ransom or extortion amount. But, wouldn’t it had been better they offered a more desirable amount rather than pocket change?
Now, they have incurred Wipo and legal cost. And, have a precedent set against their TM rights.
Personally, I think this domainer was just lucky. And, we all know the complainant is going to go after the .co again soon.
This might be one of the rare cases where having just one panelist worked out on a normal slamduck arbitration.
I suspect the panelist doesn’t like champagne.
Hi,
Does it mean that a registred trademark like “Champagne” can not be protected and anyone can register a champagne.xxx as they want?
I don’t understand why they lose the case…
@ Franck – it would make sense that they’d try to withdraw a case if they thought it was going to set a bad precedent. I’d say this just opened up champagne.tld … which is very bad for them.
Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne should stop their nonsense chasing a .co and buy my domain instead—>>> DeChampagne.com
Like they can’t afford it. Well greed might have turned the tables on them.