No one responded to the dispute.
GoDaddy has lost its first UDRP from the portfolio it acquired from Marchex in April.
The company didn’t respond to a UDRP filed by Dairyland Midwest, Inc. d/b/a AgVision for the domain name AgVision.com.
When the UDRP was filed last month, World Intellectual Property Organization sent a notice of the dispute to all contacts on the domain name. That included an @archeo.com email address as well as sales@nnamefind.com. Although the latter email address appears to be a typo, it’s also owned by the NameFind subsidiary.
The name was listed for sale for $5,199.
GoDaddy is no stranger to being on the receiving end of UDRPs, but it’s been a while. It lost a bunch of cases when it was running its Standard Tactics company to pick up expiring domains.
I am surprised GoDaddy did not respond. It was either a tactical decision, or more than likely incompetence. There are many companies using this term for various uses –
agvisionsoftware.com
agvision.ca
agvision.co.nz
agvision.ro
agvision.ch
agvision.cl
Either way, the largest registrar losing a UDRP is not a good look.
Brad
Dairyland is simply rebranding. That is bog standard, and the UDRP would do well to discount such complainants. Verify the rebrand via their 2012 website, which looks like Geocities. The clunky name ‘Dairyland Midwest Incorporated Computer Technologies’ exposes their lack of tech competency to farmers. And who wants farmers to be thus deceived?
I think way to much is relied on via “email”. It’s a broken system and a good example of a potential “typo” email address listed. Maybe a double verification system Phone/Email should be done if no reply from a party by a specific set of days?
“That included an @archeo.com email address as well as sales@nnamefind.com. Although the latter email address appears to be a typo, it’s also owned by the NameFind subsidiary.”
…but it looks like ‘nnamefind.com’ was registered on June 11, while the decisions says:
“Also on June 11, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.”
This doesn’t bode well for Godaddy’s management of the portfolio.
@Mugford — If it’s a tactical decision, it’s the right one. The prevailing view of GoDaddy is that they’re sexist wonks from Scottsdale, but what if they’ve now retained some high-functioning attorneys? (They should, having invested so much in the Marchex portfolio.) GoDaddy might well benefit from a UDRP filing, because they then exceed to a possible RDNH award in court.
The domain investor community is historically so impoverished and toothless (and so peppered with dim scoundrels) that they cringe like whipped dogs. When in fact, the intent of USC 1125’s framers is often squarely on their side. For example, 1) many identical trademarks happily coexist (ie., the 2500 ‘Delta’ marks registered with the USPO), 2) India and China are 10X the US pop’n, and, compared to us, they have just begun to find homes online, and 3) the free market valuation of prestigious domains certifies product authenticity, brand value, security of supply, and even the personal security of consumers (ie., Uber.com). Facts like these gird the public policy reasons for the language of the Code.
Under USC 1125, Dairyland will have a battle on their hands in the distinctiveness analysis. The mark ‘agvision’ is a ‘suggestive’ mark, which is two steps toward the grave (it is not arbitrary, nor fanciful). And, as @Mugford points up, there are many other users.
And further, one of those users was the previous registrant of Agvision.com–a chem company in Oregon. They had a common law use before Dairyland’s mark was registered. That prior registrant’s rights ‘extend to transfers to unrelated third parties,’ GoDaddy in this instance. That holding is from Airfx.com et al. v. Airfx LLC, 2012 WL 3638721 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2012). Howdy, Scottsdale, that’s plaintiff jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and stare decisis.
Hold the champagne, Agvision.com’s registration date is 2004…that means it was dropped subsequent to the Oregon common law use.
Wow you are so smart.
Ha, hey now don’t be mean… It’s Yun Ye’s portfolio! I assumed it was a name from the 90s….(now what did Mother say about ‘assume’…I forget…)
https://media0.giphy.com/media/HI5uU6S4VEnGE/200_s.gif