Featured Domains

register.to

YourNeighborhood.co owner tries to “pull a fast one” in UDRP

Trademark disclaims rights to “YourNeighborhood”.

Eric Levy, who runs the neighborhood information site YourNeighborhood.co, has lost a UDRP against the domain name YourNeighborhood.com.

He’s lucky the panelist didn’t bother to find him guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, too. The panelist determined that he was “trying to pull a fast one”, though.

Levy’s filing claimed that the YourNeighborhood mark was “well-known” and that Complainant has made “extensive use” of the mark. But the panelist noted that the complaint lacked any evidence to show this. In fact, the complainant’s trademark for YourNeighborhood is actually a design mark for YOURNEIGHBORHOOD LOVE WHERE YOU LIVE. Oh, and it specifically disclaims any rights in “YourNeighborhood”.

The complainant didn’t attach the trademark registration as an exhibit, and panelist Robert A. Badgley decided that Levy was “trying to pull a fast one”:

Complainant holds rights in a mark containing the words YOURNEIGHBORHOOD LOVE WHERE YOU LIVE… Throughout the Complaint, Complainant refers solely to the YOURNEIGHBORHOOD component of this mark, and makes no mention of the other words. Nor did Complainant attach a copy of the USPTO registration as an annex to the Complaint, which would have been common practice. This omission is important, because it obscures the fact that the registration specifically disclaims any right in the text YOURNEIGHBORHOOD apart from the mark as shown. The Panel suspects legerdemain on the part of Complainant. Not only was this important information omitted from the Complaint, but Complainant actually asserted in the pleadings that “the Domain Name completely incorporates Complainants’ [sic] Mark.” The manifest falsity of that statement persuades the Panel that Complainant was trying to pull a fast one.

Panelists usually don’t take kindly to someone trying to dupe them. This, combined with the complainant’s admission that the domain registrant has owned the domain since before it started using its mark, is usually grounds for reverse domain name hijacking. But Badgley didn’t bother to consider it, perhaps because the domain owner didn’t respond to the UDRP.

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

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. Meyer says

    Do we know if Levy omitted part of the TM data?
    Or, was it his lawyer?

    And, if Levy was the one that omitted the complete TM data, why didn’t his lawyer catch it? I would think the lawyer’s reputation is on the line since he swore the data was correct.

  2. AD says

    Registrant Name Eric Levy
    Registrant Address1 50 East 79th Street
    Registrant City New York
    Registrant State/Province New York
    Registrant Postal Code 10075
    Registrant Country United States
    Registrant Country Code US
    Registrant Phone Number +1.9179681986
    Registrant Email eric.r.levy@gmail.com

    Eric Levy = a dishonest creature

    Fortunately, now his name stays for a long time in the UDRP datbase and people will find the info about him easily.

  3. Ramboll says

    If You Lie About Your Trademark, That Should Automatically Be Reverse Domain Hijacking.

    Robert A. Badgley of Karbal, Cohen, Economou, Silk & Dunne, LLC in his write up of his UDRP decision didn’t even consider a “Reverse Doman Name Hijacking” decision even though he states “The manifest falsity of that statement persuades the Panel that Complainant was trying to pull a fast one.”

    As the Complainant has put the respondent to such considerable time and expense to defend, why no Reverse Doman Name Hijacking, Robert??

  4. Clint mcgadley says

    When oh when do we get to discuss:

    1. Lawyer fee for the prevailing party?
    2. Putative damages for Reverse squatting complaintants?
    3. Adverse possession for those who have owned a domain open and notoriously
    For 7 or more years?

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