MasterCard has won a domain dispute filed with the WIPO involving the domain mastercard-brasil.com.The name has been taken from Pattishall McAuliffe, the registrant, and transferred to the firm.

In its complaint, MasterCard claimed the name violated its trademark and that the registrant was using it to collect the personal information of customers who had actually intended to visit the real MasterCard site.

It’s clear that the domain violates MasterCard’s trademark, but I doubt that McAuliffe was collecting personal information because according to the case documents, the name was inactive. How can you collect information from a domain without a website?

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Mastercard wins dispute involving mastercard-brasil.com

In yet another domain dispute victory for Google, the WIPO has ruled against a cybersquatter and in favour of theMountain View company in a case involving the domain googlenetbiz.com.

As is generally the norm, Google contended that the domain violated its trademark and that it was being used in bad faith. The registrant, an Indian national by the name of Racha Ravinder, might have been able to put up some form of defense. He put the nail in the coffin with his response to the complaint, however, stating, “I will sell my domain googlenetbiz.com for USD 50,000 only, do you buy it.”

By submitting this statement, Ravinder unknowing committed cybersquatting. If the WIPO didn’t have a reason to hand the name over before his response, it did after.

Source | Express India
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: WIPO rules against cybersquatter

Data collected from a number of arbitration panels, including the WIPO and National Arbitration Forum, show that cybersquatting may be on the decline. Last year saw a 9% decline in the number of cybersquatting cases filed overall, a three-year low.

Unfortunately, this decrease does not necessarily mean the number of cybersquatters has gone down. Instead, complainants are saving money by filing for multiple domains at once. The actual number of domains disputed before panels has actually increased.

According to the WIPO and NAF, 90% of cases last year were decided in favour of the complainant.

Continue reading: Cybersquatting may be on the decline

Clothing retailer Lacoste won the domain lacostebuy.com in a recent dispute it filed with the WIPO. The name was used by a Chinese citizen, Liu Dong Ping, to sell counterfeit merchandise.

For this reason and because of trademark infringement, Lacoste requested that it be given ownership of the name. In light of this evidence and the failure of the registrant to respond to the complaint, the arbitration panel ruled in favour of the clothing company. Trademark infringers just can’t win these days, can they?

Source | Domain News
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Lacoste wins lacostebuy.com

Coca-Cola has won rockncoke.net in a domain name arbitration case at the WIPO. The beverage company claimed the domain was confusing similar to its trademark and used in bad faith.

The panel responsible for the ruling also believes that the registrant intended to sell the name to Coca-Cola and turn a profit. This is a clear-cut case of cybersquatting.

Rock’n Coke is a music festival sponsored by Coca-Cola held every summer in Istanbul, Turkey. Performer’s at this year’s event included Linkin Park, Kaiser Chiefs, and Nine Inch Nails.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Domain name arbitration

German airline Lufthansa has won a dispute over the domain star-alliance.net. The firm claims the name infringed on the trademark of Star Alliance, an alliance of airlines of which Lufthansa is a member.

The case was heard by a WIPO arbitration panel. The initial registrant of the name, Lord Oxford from “Top Banana Piggabeen,” seems a bit eccentric to say the least. In addition to demanding $50,000 from Lufthansa, he declared:

MY domain www.Star-Alliance.net is allied with www.UnitedSpaceAgency.com and www.Air-Alliance.net. and many other domains.
I’m a legend in my own mind, if not in my own time, which is the future. One a lot better than we’re headed for … see my ‘www.SavingThePla.net

Source | Domain News
Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Lufthansa wins star-alliance.net domain

Delta Airlines won a dispute over the domain delta-tickets.com at the WIPO last week. The name was originally registered by Jannie Blazek, a citizen of the Czech Republic.

The one-person arbitration panel sided with Delta, agreeing with the airline that the domain was being used in bad faith.

According to the WIPO, Blazek was using the Delta name fraudulently, claiming to sell airline tickets and collecting credit card numbers in the process. He also failed to respond when the dispute was filed by Delta.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case to me.

Photo | LeeA

Continue reading: Delta wins arbitration case

Deutsche Kreditbank has filed and won a dispute at the WIPO over the domain DKB.com. This is not surprising, however, considering the name’s owner never used the name, could not be reached, and did not respond to the filing.

The arbitrator, John Swinson, decided that the name was being used in bad faith and ordered it be transferred to the bank:

[I]t does not seem conceivable that the Respondent has legitimate plans to use the disputed domain name in the future when the name has been dormant for such an extended period of time and where (as the evidence suggests) the Respondent no longer exists.

Simply because the domain wasn’t being used and the owner could not be contacted, the arbitrator ruled it was being used in bad faith. In a true court of a law, a similar decision probably would have been made, but the idea that a registrant can lose a domain for failing to develop it is a scary one for domainers.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Deutsche Kreditbank wins at WIPO

Singapore Airlines has won a dispute filed at the WIPO. It involved ownership of the domain silverkris.com, which the company claimed was confusingly similar to its trademark, “SilverKris.”

The registrants, Wilson Yang and Chuan Lee, argued that since the name is made up of two English words (a “kris” is a type of Indonesian dagger), it does not violate any trademark. “SilverKris” is the name of the airline’s frequent-flyer lounges.

Needless to say, the WIPO disagreed and awarded the name to Singapore Airlines. Yang and Lee never stood a chance.

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Singapore Airlines wins silverkris.com

In a recent dispute over domain ShoeZone.com, arbitrator WIPO declared the owner guilty of bad faith and ordered the name be transferred to a UK trademark holder. This was in part due to his use of WHOIS privacy protection to hide his contact details:

…the Respondent’s use of the privacy service is at least consistent with bad faith. A respondent’s use of a privacy service is likely to cause a complainant some delay while it endeavors to ascertain details of the true respondent to its prospective complaint, and the respondent continues to derive click-through revenue during that period of delay.

This is the first time privacy protection has ever been ruled as bad faith. While the service does hide the user’s contact information from the WHOIS database, it can be revealed by the privacy service provider in legal and ownership disputes, usually only after receiving a subpoena.

Cybersquatters and other violators of domain ethics often do use WHOIS privacy as a shield for their actions, but the majority of people using this service do so legitimately. To mark it as bad faith is akin to arresting someone for removing their name from the phone book.

Source | The Domains

Photo | Flickr

Continue reading: Does WHOIS privacy protection constitute bad faith?

A recent domain dispute between Urban Logic Inc. and Urban Logic, Peter Holland has ended in a ruling of reverse domain name hijacking. Peter Holland registered urbanlogic.com in 1999 and used it for his consulting business before turning it into a blog for Vietnam veterans. Urban Logic Inc. owns the domain urbanlogic.org and later registered the Urban Logic trademark.

For six years, from 2003 to 2009, the companies exchanged emails, occasionally forwarding mail mistakenly sent to one or the other. They maintained a friendly relationship, both well aware of the other’s business. From time to time, Urban Logic Inc. would ask the other Urban Logic if he was willing to sell urbanlogic.com, an offer he repeatedly declined. In June of this year, and for reasons we may never truly know, Urban Logic Inc. filed a domain dispute with the WIPO.

Apparently the six-year friendship was over. They were out for blood, and the court case included bitter remarks from both sides. In the end, however, the WIPO was not impressed. Urban Logic Inc. did not have first claims on the name, nor did they even attempt to contest urbanlogic.com during the course of the six years in which they communicated with the respondent. The WIPO ruled that it was simply a bitter attempt at reverse domain name hijacking that cost Urban Logic, Peter Holland time and money.

Source: WIPO
Photo: Flickr

Continue reading: Bitter Domain Dispute Comes to an End

In what is clearly an exceptional yet not completely unique type of case, the WIPO has ruled against a legitimate trademark holder in a domain dispute. Runway Beauty Inc. filed a complaint against Errol Hernandez, who registered and parked runwaymagazine.com, runwaymagazine.net, and runwaymagazine.org. The website opens to a portal stating that it will be a social site about fashion and beauty but with no other content as of yet.

The complainant, Runway Beauty, has a website called runwaymagazine.us and offers an international print magazine about fashion, beauty, and entertainment. They own the U.S. trademark Runway Magazine, registered in 2008. The respondent first registered the disputed domains back in 1999. He intended to make a website, but never found the time or resources. In 2008, when he received complaints from Runway Beauty Inc., he began creating a website.

The panel acknowledged the first two conditions of UDRP: that the disputed domains are confusingly similar to trademarks held by the complainant and that the respondent had no legitimate business interests or rights in the domain. On the third crucial point, however, the panel did not believe Hernandez had registered the domains in bad faith. He registered the domains long before Runway Beauty even existed and always intended to make a legitimate non-commercial website.

Source: WIPO
Photo: Flickr

Continue reading: WIPO Rules Against a Trademark Holder