This case illustrates why panelists question domain investors’ explanations for registering domain names.
There’s a difference between domain investors and cybersquatters. Unfortunately, the former are often grouped in with the latter and given a bad name.
Consider a recent World Intellectual Property Organization case (pdf) brought by Meta Platforms over domains targeting Facebook and Instagram. The cybersquatter’s arguments might have a negative impact on domain investors.
Meta Platforms filed the complaint against John Corona, Patriots Act LLC, which has previously squatted on Lego domains.
The 27 domains at issue are obvious cases of cybersquatting including facebookmetabitcoin(.)com and fac3book(.)net.
Meta Platforms sent a cease & desist letter to Corona. According to Meta, Corona responded that he’d sell the domains, but they wouldn’t be cheap.
When hit with the UDRP, Corona responded, “[i]f you want to buy them all the domains are Auto calculated with a godaddy price ranging from $1700 to $3000 per domain based on godaddys IP domain name worth algorithm” (sic).
Pretty clear cybersquatting. Unfortunately, Corona tried to justify some of his domains in a way that hurts domain investors in the long run.
According to the decision, he stated that “the disputed domain names incorporating terms such as “bitcoin”, “bank”, and “america” relate to Respondent’s alleged rights in “bitcoin bank America”; and the “website with names ‘fa3ebook’ is literally ‘FA 3 EBOOK…. First airborne 3 ebook is a navy seal halo jump ebook” (sic).
The panelist didn’t buy this. Unfortunately, spurious arguments like these make panelists question all justifications for domain registrations, even when they are legitimate. This hurts domain investors when they are subject to a UDRP filing and have a legitimate reason why they registered the domain. If panelists have been subjected to questionable explanations in the past, their initial response will be to question all explanations.
My question to the author would be “so please tell us what is THE difference between Cybersquatter and Domain Investor” ?. I have been called a “Cybersquatter” by complainants BUT I consider myself an “Investor” . A number of times Complainants
have LIED ,or their Lawyer has lied for them in UDRP’s ,but I have never owned domains
which contain trademarks. It is easy to call someone a Cybersquatter. Any domains I
have lost I have ALWAYS won back in Court.
If you want to assert something in a response, attach print-to-PDF evidence. Panelists won’t believe you, even if you are telling the truth.
Using google, I found that FA 3 stands for:
Financial Accounting 3
Future Audit 3.0 (software)
according to
acronymfinder .com/FA-3.html
and
acronyms .thefreedictionary .com/FA3
My Financial Accounting textbook is heavy so it would have been great to if I had an ebook version of it when I took the course.
It would have been better if the website featured options to buy Financial Accounting 3 ebooks or links to Financial Accounting courses.
What is financial accounting III?
MGMT 546 (3) The advanced study of problems and theory related to advanced accounting topics including partnership operation and liquidation, consolidated financial statements, bankruptcy and corporate reorganization, government entities, not-for-profit entities, and estates and trusts.
In Canada, ACCT-0005 Financial Accounting 3:
This intermediate course in accounting provides coverage of financial accounting topics such as the accounting cycle, financial statement presentations, asset and revenue recognition, inventory concepts, as well as inventory and capital asset principles.
Prerequisites
ACCT-0004 Financial Accounting 2; MATH-0001 Financial Math OR MATH-0107 Math for Business