Panelist finds it odd that Name.com makes domain registrant responsible for its own “coming soon” pages.
UDRP panelist Warwick A. Rothnie has called a clause in Name.com’s registration agreement related to parked pages an “extraordinary arrangement”.
The clause basically says that Name.com will put up ads on your recently registered domain name but that the registrant is responsible for making sure the ads don’t violate third party intellectual property rights.
In what might be thought an extraordinary arrangement, the clause purports to impose on the registrant an obligation to ensure that any such advertising does not violate any third party intellectual or other proprietary rights.
Although Rothnie finds this clause extraordinary, he says ultimately the agreement a domain registrant makes with its registrar is what it is:
Be that as it may, the appropriateness of that arrangement is a matter between the Registrar and the Respondent. It is plain, however, that the terms of the Domain Name Registration Agreement gave the Respondent power to choose whether or not to use the Registrar’s Parked Domain Service. Moreover, it is clear from the record in this case that the Respondent was able to ensure that advertising of the Complainant’s competitors ceased upon receipt of the Complainant’s demands.
In these circumstances, it is plain that the Respondent was in a position in which he could control whether or not “pay-per-clickâ€ link advertising appeared on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved and the content of that advertising. Accordingly, the Panel is not prepared to find that the Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case raised by the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy.
Most panelists don’t understand the difference between a domain registrar parked page and a parked page the registrant creates, and this is something that needs to be addressed. At least one UDRP panelist has used common sense when it comes to this distinction.
Fortunately, Rothnie did find in favor of the respondent in this case over IMD.