Panel finds that Belgian gambling company filed case in abuse of policy.
Gambling company Circus Belgium has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Circus.com.
This case certainly caught me by surprise when it was filed in June.
The panel, unsurprisingly, found that the domain name was not registered or used in bad faith.
The majority of the panel found that the case was brought in bad faith. A third panelist determined that it wasn’t RDNH because the complainant was just stupid. OK, so those are my words, not his. He actually wrote, “Having a weak and poorly motivated Complaint, does not in itself constitute evidence the Complainant having acted in bad faith.”
John Berryhill represented the respondent. With Circus.com under his belt, Berryhill now has a place to house the animals he has defended: Elephant.com Pig.com, Elk.com, Ant.com, Squirrels.com.
Circus.com UDRP by DomainNameWire on Scribd
“This case certainly caught me by surprise when it was filed in June.”
The Panel avoided discussing why the complaint was filed.
What is left out of the decision is that the Complaint asserted a figurative mark. What the Complaint didn’t mention is that their EU word mark application is currently in an opposition proceeding brought by another gambling company, just before this UDRP was filed.
Often the “real reason” why a UDRP complaint is filed on a name no one cared about for years, requires some digging.
But because there is an ongoing dispute over this mark in Europe, the Complainant was seeking to get some additional ammunition for that dispute, but didn’t mention that in its filing. In these kinds of situations, the panel tries to find a way to decide the case without wading into contested waters.
In January of this year, the Complainant filed EU Application 15030927 for the word mark “CIRCUS”. The Complainant’s attempt to claim rights in “CIRCUS” as a word mark has been opposed in EUIPO Opposition Proceeding 002727256, filed by International Gaming Projects Limited.
You’d be surprised how often this happens, and how often panels don’t provide the context of what is really going on in these things.
“Berryhill now has a place to house the animals ”
Very creative. Good point. 🙂
Assclowns comes to mind. 😀
SO WHAT!!! Since there are no reprucusions to the loser for this form of “attempted theft״ why does it even matter. The UDRP should be a looser pay all fees including having them pay for 3 member panel and legal fees and then some major financial penalty. Whole thing is a joke. domainers without deep pockets lose even if they win
The Complainant was Circus Belgium, Belgium
The Complainant was represented by Lawyers De Gaulle Fleurance et Associés Belgium. Based in Brussels.
The two panelists that found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, James A. Barker and Richard Lyon, are NOT from Brussels
but the panelist who couldn’t bring himself to say this was RDNH was Lawyer Geert Glas based in, guess where? Yes, Brussels
http://www.allenovery.com/people/en-gb/Pages/Geert-Glas.aspx
Bit like Eurovision tactical voting, huh? Nul points, Brussels.
John Berryhill is a Lion. King of the Jungle.
What’s going on in Brussels?
In the WIPO UDRP case for SDT.com:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2014-1870
The complainant was SDT International Limited in Brussels
represented by Novagraaf Belgium with office in Brussels http://www.novagraaf.com/en/branches/belgium
Although panelist Tony Willoughby (not from Brussels) did a scorching dissenting opinion “On the papers before the Panel I would have dismissed the Complaint and found the Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”, fellow panelist Geert Glas (based in Brussels) could not bring himself to join Tony Willoughby in a scathing opinion of this frivolous UDRP complaint by a Brussels-based company represented by lawyers with office in Brussels.
The Brussels complainant later had to pay $50,000 penalty to settle a lawsuit stemming from the frivolous UDRP it filed.
https://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-udrp/
Take a bow, Britain! The quiet people of our country rise up against an arrogant, out-of-touch political class and a contemptuous Brussels elite.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3659143/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-bow-Britain-quiet-people-country-rise-against-arrogant-touch-political-class-contemptuous-Brussels-elite.html
‘You are not laughing now, are you?’ Nigel Farage at European Parliament in Brussels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJzRa7HWVqs
Brussels based Geert Glas appears to have had conflicting opinions with his fellow panelists in the cases involving Belgian Complainants represented by Brussels law firms mentioned above.
The legal world in Brussels being such a small community, it seems reasonable to assume that Geert Glas would know or at least be aware of the Law Firms De Gaulle Fleurance et Associés Belgium, based in Brussels and Novagraaf Belgium with offices in Brussels.
Of course, being a professional bound by a code of ethics, this would not influence any of his decisions (even though they went against his fellow panelists).