National Arbitration Forum gives company a second bite of the apple, but it fails again.
Camco Manufacturing, Inc. has failed for a second time to obtain the domain name Camco.com through a UDRP.
The company, which uses the domain camco.net, filed its first UDRP against the domain in 2011. It didn’t have registered trademarks at the time, nor did it allege common law rights. It lost the UDRP, but for some reason, the National Arbitration Forum panel said the case was dismissed “without prejudice.”
So Camco tried again in 2022, this time armed with federal trademark registrations.
But the panel sided with domain owner Brian Wick yet again. Wick successfully argued that he had rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
The panel wrote:
…Regardless of Complainant’s trademark rights, the Panel – based on its assessment of the extensive evidence submitted by the Respondent – agrees with the Respondent that the term “camco” is a commonly used term. Indeed the term was in common use by multiple parties at the time the domain was registered. Further, Complainant has failed to provide evidence showing that Respondent was targeting the Complainant in particular or that Respondent had reason to expect that Complainant had any exclusive rights in the term when the disputed domain name was registered. And even now, Complainant’s rights are not exclusive except as to the limited class of goods for which the mark was registered.
Respondent presents extensive evidence showing that many third parties have rights and legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”. The Panel finds that Respondent also a legitimate right and interest in using the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights. Indeed, according to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, “generally speaking, panels have accepted that aggregating and holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP.”
Respondent further argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name by nature of its business buying and selling generic domain names. Respondent provided evidence containing amongst others screenshots of his business at , the center of Respondent’s business network of generically held domain names for sale. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), past panels have found that generic domain name reselling is considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Alphalogix Inc. v. DNS Servs., FA 491557 (Forum July 26, 2005) (“Respondent is in the business of creating and supplying names for new entities, including acquiring expired domain names…
Tuggle Duggins P.A. represented Camco Manufacturing in both disputes.
Leave a Comment