Panel makes the right decision but I understand why Etsy was upset.
Homemade goods and crafts site Etsy.com has lost a dispute it filed with the National Arbitration Forum to get the domain name Esty.com.
The case was doomed because the owner of the domain, PortMedia Holdings, registered it four years before Etsy started.
In ordinary circumstances, I would give Etsy grief for filing the case given that the domain was registered before the company existed. But, although the panel made the right decision because of the dates, I understand why Etsy was upset about this particular domain name.
As I wrote last month, Esty.com was parked and some of the traffic was sent to zero click landers with scams on them. Etsy listed a number of scam pages that the domain was forwarding to.
If you’re running a company and a lot of people intending to visit your site end up on a page that says their computer is infected with malware or they are tricked into downloading toolbars, you’d be very upset.
In this case the domain name owner said it was unaware of the zero click landers and fixed the problem as soon as the case was filed. This is believable; I suspect many domain owners aren’t aware of what parking companies are doing with their domain traffic.
I urge all domain name owners to ask their parking providers if they serve zero click and if there’s an option to turn it off. While zero click makes a lot of sense in theory, it seems that providers haven’t found a way to prevent scammers from using their services.
Jason Schaeffer and Ari Goldberger of ESQwire.com represented the domain name owner.
Confusingly similar?
Considering I read the first paragraph twice before I realized that you weren’t talking about etsy.com, I’d say this passes the UDRP’s first test.
Snap! I read it that way until I saw your comment.
#metoo
This should be RDNH. Where the domain predates the TM, always RDNH.
This complainant is ululating about their Scyllae and Charibdes for paaages. The question for this bleating lamb is:
‘Where is the copy of your Cease and Desist, or any notice, to the registrant? To the webhost, or to the registrar?’
You file a unwinnable UDRP against a pre-existing domain, via an attorney, without even sending one email? Your sole and clear objective is to strategically steal this domain.
Webhosts, registrars, etc. will shut down a network of a hundred websites instantly, without even a phoned heads up, if they get a C&D. News to no one.
I generally agree that they should send some sort of communication first. But I understand their reluctance to send one to someone who has whois privacy. They might also be concerned that the person will start transferring it to other registrars.