Your comadre wouldn’t approve.
The National Arbitration Forum has found against Texas company Comadre Commerce, LLC in arbitration over the domain name Comadre.com.
This is despite the owner of the domain name not responding. Had the owner responded, this case could have been an easy case of reverse domain name hijacking.
First things first, comadre is a generic term meaning “godmother” in Spanish.
Second, Comadre Commerce said it had a trademark registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But it only attached a printout from the USPTO concerning a Trademark Office Action Response. Here’s why: it really just has pending application that was filed after the respondent registered the domain — and it was filed as an intent to use application. So there’s no way the complainant could argue that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. It tried anyway.
The complainant also claimed that it made several reasonable offers to the domain owner, which the owner denied or ignored.
There’s also the puzzling assertion that (in the panelist’s words) “Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s image on Respondent’s various websites constitutes copyright and trademark infringement in violation of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 106(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976.”
Given that the complainant tried to buy the domain name multiple times and the domain was registered prior to its intent-to-use trademark filing and it’s a generic term and the Comadre Commerce was represented by counsel, I’d argue this is a clear case of reverse domain name hijacking.
Good thing it wasn’t a WIPO action, or perhaps even worse, UDRP. The internet represents capitalism at its best, and WIPO and UDRP actions are sometimes used when lawless villians want to take something that is not rightfully their by government fiat. Maybe they’ll start making all capitalists wear a yellow star on their chest…
@Domainerdon – This was a UDRP.
@Domainerdon – This was in fact a UDRP decision. Looks to be a good decision in this case, they denied someone trying to hijack a domain.
Their lawyer is a bankruptcy attorney.
The list of these grows and grows
There is no such thing as an “easy reverse domain hijacking” since panelists simple choose to ignore Complainant’s dirty work most of the time.
This is why the NAF and WIPO need to be sued. They work on behalf of Complainants since they are the ones creating the income.
It is a very dirty system that need reforming.
Burn NAF and WIPO in hell!!!!