I can’t figure out what these lawyers are doing.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has decided the latest case involving a Gorgonzola domain name. It has me questioning the legal approach taken by Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola, the organization that defends the Gorgonzola trademark for cheese.
Last week I wrote about a case for gorgonzola.blue and noted that the facts of the case, including the geographic location of the registrant and what they intend to use the domain for, matter.
In the latest case for gorgonzola.info, the registrant is located in Italy but says they registered the domain because of the city of Gorgonzola, not the cheese. The Respondent owns lots of Italian city name domains.
What’s particularly perplexing is that, in an effort to bolster its case, the Complainant mentioned two other cybersquatting cases against the Respondent that reference Italian cities that are cheeses as well. The Respondent won both of those cases. Why is the Complainant pointing out cases that are evidence of the domain owner’s case that it registered the domains because of the cities?
As I pointed out in my last article, Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola hasn’t hand registered many relevant domains. One of them is a domain against which it lost a UDRP that later expired. So it thought it was worth paying thousands of dollars to file a UDRP against the domain but hasn’t bothered to register it for a few bucks now that it’s available.