Infertility company fails in cybersquatting claim for IVI.com.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has ruled against Spanish infertility medical company Equipo IVI SL in a dispute over the domain name IVI.com. Equipo IVI argued that WebMD was cybersquatting by owning the domain name.
WebMD did not respond to the cybersquatting complaint. Despite this, the panelist determined that WebMD did not register the domain in bad faith. This was primarily because the complainant did not show that it had trademark rights in IVI at the time IVI.com was registered in 1992.
It’s not clear when WebMD acquired the IVI.com domain name. The company was not founded until 1996 and DomainTools’ oldest historical record for the domain is from 2001. This record shows WebMD as the owner.
Had WebMD bothered to respond, it could have poked a lot of holes in Equipo IVI SL’s case. Here is one of the more laughable arguments in Equipo IVI’s filing:
The Respondent, by rejecting the Complainant’s offers prior to the filing of the Complaint and by keeping the disputed domain name inactive since the date of registration, is engaging in passive retention, clearly jeopardising the Complainant and preventing it from providing the products or services corresponding to its business activity;
The panelists of the UDRP system are ridiculous
Someone loses for the “same” domain represented by a lawyer, someone wins without even answering
Very well said!
All these 3L.coms being subjected to UDRPs recently, slowly the marketing world wakes up to the importance of short domains. Something Rick Schwartz use to get frustrated about, the ad agencies of madison avenue not paying attention or the money to advertise with a good domain.
“passive retention”
That’s lawyers for you! They will try to argue just about anything.
I am actually quite shocked at this story. Not that a complainent would try a spin of UDRP roulette wheel, but that WebMD wouldn’t have mounted any sort of defence.
I note that both WebMD.com and IVI.com are administered by Mark Monitor. Surely MM don’t just ignore any UDRP communications on behalf of their clients??
In WebMD’s position, why waste 5K responding? US registrant, US domain.
Best case scenario for WebMD: the domain is errantly transferred, and they scoop up 100K for RDNH. Even if they purchased IVI.COM last year, they would still prevail. Alienable rights, carrying to WebMD from the original owner’s 1992 ‘untargeted’ registration. (Airfx.com et al v Airfx LLC 2012 WL 3638721 D Ariz Aug 23 2012.)
Panelists who hew to the date in the Whois as intended, without any ‘aftermarket’ spitballing, are saving complainants a 100K beating in federal court.
Company win the name without udrp response but if that happen to domain investor I bet you they never win without response.
Look like lots wrong doing by udrp panelist , most of time I noticed usa based company always win case in their favor look like panelist fear of future lawsuit from this big firms or what?