Printing company filed cybersquatting case in abuse of policy.
As predicted, Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence, Inc. dba Grandstand has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Grandstand.com.
Screen-It has used the domain name egrandstand.com since 2006 and started using the name Grandstand for its business in 1991, according to the complaint. Grandstand.com, a valuable dictionary word, was registered in 1995.
The owner of Grandstand.com subsequently used the domain name on two occasions: once for a business and once for email.
In finding that the case was filed in abuse of the policy, panelist Richard G. Lyon noted:
A few of the more egregious examples are failure to allege or prove targeting, failure to provide proof of either registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, and citing a number of Policy provisions and precedent misleadingly out of context. The circumstances of this case, consisting most significantly of the facts that the GRANDSTAND mark is also a word with dictionary meaning, the Respondent having registered the disputed domain name over 20 years ago, and the lack of targeting demonstrated on the record, at a minimum calls out for an explanation from the Complainant…
…The Complainant has advanced arguments, on both facts and Policy precedent, that are at best misleading and at worst intended to mislead the Panel.
Lyon summarizes his finding:
On any objective analysis the fact remains that the Respondent has been put to time and trouble to defend a proceeding the Panel considers groundless. Even the Complainant’s research, selective and cursory as it is, demonstrates an awareness of the Respondent’s prior commercial structure and its activity in an unrelated and noncompeting field. This, together with the fundamental flaws in the Complainant’s case and lack of proof on key Policy elements, convinces this Panel that this Complaint should not have been brought, and the Complainant and its professional representative should have known it.
Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence was represented by Hovey Williams LLP, an intellectual property law firm in Kansas. Ironically, its slogan is Where Integrity Thrives®.
Meanwhile, back at the raunch, Minnesota’s ADR Forum has Renee Fossen, personal injury lawyer, driving their clown car:
She’s ‘drumming up business’ by sending out promo mailers:
“Which Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) is Right for Your Domain Dispute?… Complaint no longer than 15 pages, with an unlimited number of annexes with an overall size limitation of 50mb. …Available remedies are cancellation or transfer to Complainant. …Standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. …
Kind Regards,
Renee Fossen
Director of Arbitration”
Are those the available remedies, Renee? How about telling your potential ‘customers’ that by filing a UDRP they’re exposing themselves to 100K+ in penalties for violating federal law?
I’m sorry, is there a potato famine in Minnesota? Talk about ‘unclear on the concept.’ The directive is to ‘unburden the courts,’ you drooly flounder. Eyeballs towards the light, please.
Can you imagine a federal judge sending out spam like this? ‘Hey, Buddy, whatcha doin’? Wanna sue somebody? Get free stuff! It’s easy!’