Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Legally.co owner fails to get Legally.com in cybersquatting dispute

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Company faces the challenge of operating with a descriptive name.

An incorporation and trademark filings company has lost a cybersquatting dispute to upgrade its domain name from .co to .com.

Legally uses Legally.co to pitch its services. GoDaddy owns Legally.com, a name it picked up in a bulk acquisition from Tucows about a year ago. NameFind was asking about $25,000 for the domain.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Harrie R. Samaras found that the Complainant did not show that NameFind targeted it with the domain registration for what is a highly descriptive mark. However, Samaras suggested that Legally might have a grievance that could be taken up in the courts. (That seems like a long shot to me given the descriptive nature of the domain.)

It appears that Legally is having some success with its business. $25,000 seems like a fair price for Legally.com. I would jump on it if I were them.

NameFind was represented by Gerald Levine.

Share34
Tweet
Share
Email

HugeDomains uses a novel approach in UDRP response

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Company used Amazon Turk to survey people about the meaning of a term.

Tenaris with an ‘n’, not an ‘m’.

Domain name seller HugeDomains used a unique approach in a recent UDRP response.

Oil and gas company Tenaris Connections BV filed the dispute against the domain Temaris.com, which is one letter off from the company’s Tenaris.com domain.

HugeDomains had a lot going for it in this case. It didn’t point the domain to competing ads and apparently capitalized the domain on the landing page as TeMaris.com.

“Te” is a common pronoun in many languages. Click here to continue reading…

Share38
Tweet
Share
Email

BTSA.com: Cybersquatting or RDNH? You decide.

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

WIPO panelist makes a questionable decision.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Warwick A. Rothnie has determined that the owner of BTSA.com is cybersquatting and that the domain should be transferred to BTSA Biotecnologias Aplicadas, S.L.

Rothnie’s decision is surprising. You can make a good argument that this was actually a case of attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

It’s a bit convoluted because the domain name is financed by Domain Capital. Rothnie decided that the financing company is the true owner of the domain, which it financed in 2014. But the fact is that the beneficial owner registered the domain in 2003.

Although the Complainant says it existed prior to that, it didn’t register a domain for its website until 2004.

The Complainant has a registered trademark for BTSA BIOTECNOLOGÍAS APLICADAS as a figurative mark. Rothnie found this confusingly similar to the BTSA.com domain name.

What’s quite clear from reading the decision is that the beneficial owner of the domain acquired the domain for its value as a four letter domain, and that is how Domain Capital likely financed it. The decision says the domain was parked but did not show ads related to the Complainant.

That’s not cybersquatting.

The Complainant says it first discovered the use of BTSA.com when it decided to set up a subsidiary in the United States. It tried to acquire the domain and that failed. It then filed the UDRP.

I’d make an argument that this is a case of Plan B reverse domain name hijacking, not cybersquatting.

If nothing else, it’s not a clear case of cybersquatting and I believe Rothnie made the wrong decision.

Share38
Tweet
Share
Email

AUSACORP, S.L. hit for reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Barcelona company files cybersquatting claim in abuse of the UDRP.

AUSACORP, S.L. has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a cybersquatting dispute it filed over the domain name Excelway.com.

The company started a brand called Excelway but didn’t inform the World Intellectual Property Organization panel about the date it originated the brand. It appears to have been sometime this decade but the owner of Excelway.com registered the domain in 2003.

AUSACORP tried to buy the domain and the domain owner responded with a counter-offer. The company then filed the UDRP but didn’t mention its overture to buy the domain. Instead, it said that the domain owner tried to sell it to them.

Given that the domain appears to have been registered before the brand existed, the domain couldn’t have been registered in bad faith. Furthermore, the panel found that AUSACORP filed the complaint in abuse of the policy (reverse domain name hijacking):

In this case, the Panel considers that the Complainant omitted or misrepresented key communications between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant’s earlier offer to purchase the Disputed Domain Name was only disclosed by the Respondent. The Panel considers the Complainant filed the Complaint only after several failed attempts to purchase the Disputed Domain Name at what it considered to be a reasonable price.

The Panel considers the Complainant launched the proceedings out of desperation as its prior attempt to purchase the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent were unsuccessful but without a reasonable chance of success and as such in the circumstances constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

The Complainant was represented by Herrero & Asociados. The domain name owner represented himself.

Share38
Tweet
Share
Email

Flying Dog Brewery tries to hijack domain name

by — Policy & Law 12 Comments

Brewery makes “blatant and intentional misrepresentation”, panelist says.

Flying Dog Brewery was found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. Photo from FlyingDogBrewery.com.

Craft brewer Flying Dog Brewery has been found by a World Intellectual Property Organization panel to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

The brewery uses the domain name FlyingDogBrewery.com but wants the domain name FlyingDog.com. That domain was registered in 1996 and used by its owner to promote his software company for many years.

The brewery first tried to buy the domain name in 2001. It invited the domain owner to tour the brewery and made a $19,000 offer to buy the domain. The owner declined.

Then, earlier this year, a broker reached out to the domain owner working on behalf of an unnamed client. He offered $15,000 for the domain. The domain owner declined and asked for $225,000. Shortly thereafter, Flying Dog Brewery filed the UDRP.

Amazingly, the Complainant stated in the filing that the Respondent retained an agent to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, even though it was clearly the Complainant that initiated the discussion.

Panelist William Towns wrote:

The Complainant could easily have discovered from a brief Internet search the Respondent’s historical use the disputed domain name before filing the Complaint…The Complainant either did not do so, or having done so elected to conceal from the Panel known facts unfavorable to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted a barebones complaint unsupported by any evidence, and blatantly misrepresented to the Panel that the Respondent had hired an undisclosed agent seeking to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at an exorbitant price. The record, however, confirms that it was the Complainant who retained a domain name broker. The Complainant’s blatant and intentional misrepresentation as described above constitutes a clear violation of section XIII, paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

The brewery was represented by Offit│Kurman. The domain owner was represented by Thomas P. Howard LLC.

Share38
Tweet
Share
Email