URS was designed for super-slam-dunk cases of cybersquatting. This was anything but.
Krahn Chemie GmbH, a chemical distribution company, has lost a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) case in a rather convincing manner: it was found to have filed the case in abuse of the URS.
I don’t write about URS cases that often. It’s a cheaper, faster version of UDRP that was introduced along with new top level domain names.
URS is reserved for super-slam-dunk cases of cybersquatting. It’s cheaper and faster. And notably, the domain isn’t transferred to the Complainant upon winning; it is only suspended for the duration of the registration.
Krahn Chemie filed the case against crane.legal. It submitted evidence that the domain resolved to a pay-per-click page with ads related to cranes. You know, those big things used to move stuff during construction.
The page also had a banner stating the domain was for sale at GoDaddy for $100.
Despite the ads related to the dictionary meaning of the second level domain, and despite the low purchase price, Krahn decided to file a URS.
FORUM panelist Ivett Paulovics ruled in favor of the domain owner. Paulovics also found that the case was filed in abuse of the proceedings:
The URS is designed for clear-cut cases of trademark abuse involving domain names that were registered and used in bad faith, with no legitimate rights or interests by the respondent. In this case, the Complainant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name consists of a generic term, and the evidence submitted by the Complainant shows it was used in a manner consistent with its dictionary meaning. The PPC links on the parking page are directly related to that generic meaning, and there is no indication that the Respondent targeted the Complainant or its trademark. Furthermore, offering the disputed domain name for sale to the general public—not to the Complainant or its competitors—at a modest price of USD 100 does not support a finding of bad faith under URS standards. The Complainant, assisted by a professional representative, should have known that it could not succeed under the strict and limited scope of the URS, particularly given the generic nature of the term “crane” and the existence of numerous third-party trademark registrations for that term across different industries. The Examiner finds that the Complainant filed this URS Complaint with knowledge that it was unfounded. Accordingly, the Complaint is deemed an abuse of the URS proceeding.
VKK Patentanwälte PartG mbB represented Krahn Chemie.
(Thanks to the ICA UDRP Digest for bringing this case to my attention.)
Leave a Comment