The argument is that the name netlix.com is confusingly similar to netflix.com, but as with all such cases, they also had to prove that Fox did not have a legitimate right or interest in the domain and that he registered it in bad faith. Fox registered the domain back in 1999 and kept it, although his company is apparently no longer around. Netflix argued that he was now only using it as an advertising portal.

Unlike most cases denial cases, where the panel finds that there was no bad faith, this one was decided by the first clause. Netlix.com, the panel decided, is not confusingly similar to Netflix.com because of the missing “f” and no evidence that it would confuse customers. Furthermore, the panel ruled against Netflix on the latter two clauses since Fox had used the domain for business in the past and had a long connection with it.

Source: UDRPSearch
Photo: Flickr

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

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

Mobile telecommunications giant Nokia filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum over the domain ovistore.com. The respondent in the case was Nehra Corp. Nokia owns the trademark OVI, and their application store website address is store.ovi.com. Like many other cybersquatting cases, the respondent used ovistore.com to display a website with ads and links to Nokia competitors.

Nehra Corp. did not respond the complaint, apparently being satisfied with the temporary profit machine. The panel found that they had violated all three of the requirements for judgment: that the domain name was confusingly similar to a legal trademark, that the respondent had no legitimate usage rights of the domain, and that the respondent registered the domain in bad faith. The panel ruled in favor of Nokia.

Nokia is one of the world’s leading vendors of mobile devices and apparently intends to use OVI Store to compete with Apple’s iPhone app store. As of now ovistore.com points to a “site is not currently available” message. As with nearly all of these cases, it is not clear whether Nokia will pursue any legal action or if simply losing the domain is incentive enough for cybersquatters to stop their money-making schemes.

Source: National Arbitration Forum
Photo: Flickr

My-gofer.org is a website for Stage/Film/TV where performers can showcase their talents, and it is a legitimate business. According to ICANN rules of its domain dispute policy, a complainant must satisfy three elements in order to prove that a domain should be transferred to them: 1. Trademark or common law mark,that the domain is confusingly similar to a business name or trademark 2. that the respondent has no reasonable right to the domain, and 3. that the respondent operated in bad faith.

While the first element was undeniable, even by the respondent, the second two were equally deniable. The panel ruled that the respondent was using the two of the domains for legitimate business and had plans to use the others for the same business, which is not in direct competition with Sears or its MyGofer website. Furthermore, there was no evidence that they acted in bad faith, thus no cybersquatting. In this case, Sears loses.

Source: UDRPsearch
Photo: Flickr

Jones did not respond to the dispute and therefore left it completely up to arbitration panel to decide the outcome, which was pretty much an open and close case. SCOPE is a registered trademark of Proctor and Gamble, which I am sure Jones very well knew. It was also clear that Jones registered the domain in bad faith with the sole intent of profiting from the trademark through random ads.

As with all of the cases like this one, it left me wondering what type of income people like Jones receive before they lose the domains. Cybersquatting continues to be a problem for many website owners, including large corporations with significant interest in protecting their trademarks. According to ICANN policy, the panel ordered the registrar to transfer the domain to Proctor and Gamble.

Source: UDRPsearch

Transure Enterprise used the domains to host links to various sites and services, including sites that are in competition with Radio Shack. To make matters worse, when confronted by Radioshack, Transure offered to sell the domains at an inflated price. Radioshack insisted that it violated their trademark and showed bad faith because of illegitimate usage of the site and the offer of sale.

Transure Enterprise did not respond to the complaint, but the WIPO still went through the normal procedures of a ruling, concluding that the domains were confusingly similar to Radioshack’s trademark and that the respondent acted in bad faith. Therefore, they ruled in favor of Radioshack. As with all of these disputes, it leaves me wondering how much money Transure made before they got caught and if that is their business model. By not responding, they did not even incur any legal costs and suffered no substantial penalties.

Source: UDRPsearch
Photo: Flickr

LEGO owns the trademark of the same name and has more than 450 domain names with that trademark in them. Zerbo did not create an enthusiast site or even a real business but instead placed ad links to drive traffic and money to it. LEGO sent cease and desist letters for one domain, legos.com, and it was immediately transferred. With the other domains, however, LEGO received no response.

When LEGO took the case before the WIPO, the respondent did not argue a case. They obviously ruled in favor of LEGO, and ordered both domains to be transferred. The practice of registering known trademarked names as domains and then making profit from them is called cybersquatting. Despite its illegality in many nations, the frequency of cases seems to be on the rise.

Source: UDRPsearch
Photo: Flickr

At first glance, this dispute seems like an open and close case. All three domain names are not only similar to President Clinton’s name, they all actually are his name. Apparently, the National Arbitration Forum did not see it that way. While they did determine that Clinton’s name is a “common law mark”, which is kind of like an unofficial trademark for a person name, that only fulfills one of the three requirements for UDRP.

The second requirement is that the registering party must have some rights to the name, either through fair use (parody) or some other means. The panel found that they did not. The final requirement is that the domain names must have been registered in “bad faith”. For UDRP to be considered, the registered domain must be used for selling or transferring the domain, keeping it from Clinton, disrupting Clinton’s business, or attracting Internet users by confusing them.

The panel found none of those to be the case. Apparently, the respondent registered the domain names to prove that it was easy to register the domain names of famous people and that certain names of famous politicians and famous places should be protected under federal law. He pointed the domains to a Republican site simply to demonstrate that such a thing could be done. Furthermore, when he was asked to turn over the domains to the government, he did. It is not clear exactly what Clinton hoped to gain from this case, but it does demonstrate the sometimes complex nature of these disputes.

Source: National Arbitration Forum
Photo: Flickr