Domain investor wins UDRP but panelist declines to find RDNH based on inclusion of Complainant’s business on landing page.
Mike Mann and his company DomainMarket.com have successfully defended the domain name Tergus.com in a UDRP. However, the panelist declined to find reverse domain name hijacking because of the inclusion of a “Product and Service Directory” on the landing page for the domain name.
Mann acquired the domain in 2010, two years before Complainant Tergus Pharma, LLC claims trademarks for Tergus. Given these dates, panelist Scott Blackmer rightfully declined the cybersquatting claim.
However, Blackmer declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. He pointed to the landing page for Tergus.com. At the bottom of the page there’s a section labeled “Product and Service Directory” that lists three of the Complainant’s businesses (see picture above).
That does seem like a risky inclusion on a landing page of a domain for sale.
Alan Built says
Lucky they didn’t loose the domain over that “directory”
David Michaels says
Mike shouldn’t have his domains resolving to their corresponding domainmarket landing pages that list companies who have the keywords in their corporate names.
Instead, we should have zoominfo like pages for each keyword with an ad for the corresponding domain(s) that we own or are brokering.
And the domains should resolve to their own efty like pages or offer a bonafide products or services that don’t infringe any trademarks. Yes, this may be time consuming but it should pay for itself, according to Rick Schwartz’ experience.
Ideally, we should apply to register a trademark for each of our valuable domains.
Some UDRP panelists have caused problems even for generic names.
Eg. Sesamesnaps .com
Michael G says
I can’t see why providing a service that isn’t conflicting with the marks is a problem. He clearly had the domain prior to their mark, he couldn’t have targeted them, and he didn’t try to pass off as who they are or doing what they do. A court where these things would be explored would find in his favor imo. Arbitrator here is narrow minded, as many of them are.
Andrew Allemann says
The panelist found in Mann’s favor precisely for the reasons you stated. He just gave them an out on reverse domain name hijacking.
168 says
MG-The number one problem with providing a “service” is an assumption that it is a service.
Next – it’s critical to respect a companies authority over their brand.
Most of the time all one has to do is ask for permission.
Should be obvious- Brand associations.
Bad press. Outdated information
Mann may be a trustworthy source however the pic above suggests the info wasn’t a link.
Mann benefited from page content.
As a respected teacher in domains this type of border line action sends a message that it’s ok.
TM issues are on the rise and the domain industry has some work to do raising credibility, trust and protecting the right to own domains.
Cheers
Funnellsitesblog says
Another victory for the U.S Constitution and freedom of speech. Good for him