who has rights to domain ??

gdtechindia · 12-22-2006, 01:08 AM

We have a client with two domains

bestenterpriserentals.info
findenterprisecarrentals.info

and one more similar domain

the company says that enterpriserentals is their TM

Our client didn't check his email and when checked it after say two months, he found that 2 - 3 notices sent and decision given in favour of the other party by >> http://www.adrforum.com/

what should our client do now ??

he has no interest in the domains, but he only seeks a compensation of say $ 200 to transfer both domains to the other party ?

What say

StoneRoses · 12-22-2006, 03:03 AM

I would say that, he is not entitled to anything,as he didn't respond to any emails,who goes 2 months without checking emails?, nobody i know.I find that very strange,didn't check them or chose to ignore them?.

He has lost the case and to my mind that is that, i think had he answered the emails,if as you say he isn't interested in the domains he would have got his reg fee back and costs maybe not $200, but enough to break even.

IMHO they should let it go and learn from it,

Thanks

hamerz · 12-22-2006, 08:33 AM

I've not heard of single side arbitration.

What authority does ardforum.com have over domain names?

Now if it was

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

That would be a different story.

kdom · 12-22-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by hamerz

I've not heard of single side arbitration.

What authority does ardforum.com have over domain names?

Now if it was

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/271953-who-has-rights-to-domain.html

That would be a different story.

ADR Forum is the authority appointed by ICANN to arbitrate domain disputes. This is not something ICANN does themselves.

Your client elected arbitration when regging or buying the name and agreed to keep the admin contact information accurate and respond to emails sent there. Your client should immediately facilitate turning over the domain names.

This was not one-sided arbitration. Both parties probably received notice pursuant to the domain registration contract. Your client's failure to respond was itself a response. Your client in effect agreed to a default judgement in accordance with the domain registration agreement.

Your client would normally be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred and I doubt that the TM owner would have objected to that. Asking for $200 is not reasonable. Reasonable means "actual" in most cases. Your client has almost no expenses in unlocking the domain or otherwise authorizing the transfer.

If your client had cooperated in the first place and responded to the emails so that the TM owner did not have to go to arbitrartion, I suspect the TM owner would have been agreeable to a reasonable fee, perhaps $50 to cover the half hour or less that we all know it would take.

This is why we should all do due diligence before buying or regging a name.

gdtechindia · 12-22-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by hamerz

I've not heard of single side arbitration.

What authority does ardforum.com have over domain names?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

Now if it was

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

That would be a different story.

they are talking abt ICANN giving them permission. The verdict was from a retired judge.

Also, the client has got many domains, these two were not on their priority list and they registered domains from some other email id and never checked it again after registering domains.

ekal · 12-22-2006, 01:10 PM

This is a fairly clear cut case.

1) enterpriserentals is a TM that was infringed on
2) your client didn't defend themselves
3) the case has already been decided. You had a slim chance of getting $200 before the case, but now you have none.

Hence, he'll need to hand over the domain

floatingworld · 12-22-2006, 01:19 PM

ignore them subject to receiving a communication from ICANN. So they won't pay $200? so let em wait.

kdom · 12-22-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by floatingworld

ignore them subject to receiving a communication from ICANN. So they won't pay $200? so let em wait.

The communication from ADR Forum is from ICANN! ADR is acting on behalf of ICANN.

**Dave Zan** · 12-22-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by ekal

Hence, he'll need to hand over the domain

The client doesn't need to. The registrar's already handed them over after the
complainant fulfilled all the necessary obligations with the UDRP provider.

When we register domain names with our preferred registrar, we agree to one
of its provisions:

http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal_...ageid=REG%5FSA

Quote:

4. dispute resolution policy
You agree to be bound by our current Dispute Resolution Policy. This policy is incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement. You can view the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy online. You agree that Go Daddy may from time to time modify its Dispute Resolution Policy. Go Daddy will post any changes to its Dispute Resolution Policy at least 30 days before they become effective. You agree that by maintaining Your domain name registrations with Go Daddy after the updated policy becomes effective that You agree to the Dispute Resolution policy as amended. You agree to review Go Daddy's web site periodically to determine if changes have been made to the Dispute Resolution Policy. If You cancel Your agreement with Go Daddy as a result of the modified Dispute Resolution policy no fees will be refunded to You.

You agree that if a dispute arises as a result of one or more domain names You have registered using Go Daddy, You will indemnify, defend and hold Go Daddy harmless as provided for in this agreement. You also agree that if Go Daddy is notified that a complaint has been filed with a governmental, administrative or judicial body, regarding a domain name registered by You using Go Daddy, that Go Daddy, in its sole discretion, may take whatever action Go Daddy deems necessary regarding further modification, assignment of and/or control of the domain name deemed necessary to comply with the actions or requirements of the governmental, administrative or judicial body until such time as the dispute is settled. In this event You agree to hold Go Daddy harmless for any action taken by Go Daddy.

http://www.enom.com/terms/agreement.asp

Quote:

DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY: You agree to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), which is available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm and http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm . You agree that the UDRP may be changed by ICANN (or ICANN's successor) at any time. You agree that, if the registration or reservation of your domain name is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy in effect at the time your domain name registration is disputed by the third party. You also agree that, in the event a domain name dispute arises with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions of the UDRP. You also understand that it is important for you to regularly monitor email sent to the email address associated with your account and domain names because, among other reasons, if a dispute arises regarding Services provided to you, you may loose your rights to receive the Services if you do not respond expeditiously to an email sent in conjunction therewith.

http://www.networksolutions.com/lega...-agreement.jsp
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

Quote:

5. Domain Name Dispute Policy. If you registered a domain name through us, you agree to be bound by our current domain name dispute policy that is incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement by reference. The current version of the domain name dispute policy may be found at our Web site: http://www.netsol.com/legal/dispute-policy.jsp.

6. Domain Name Dispute Policy Modifications. You agree that we, in our sole discretion, may modify our dispute policy. We will post any such revised policy on our Web site at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. You agree that, by maintaining the reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications. You acknowledge that if you do not agree to any such modification, you may terminate this Agreement. We will not refund any fees paid by you if you terminate your Agreement with us.

7. Domain Name Disputes Brought by Third Parties. You agree that, if your use of our domain name registration services is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in our dispute policy in effect at the time of the dispute. For the adjudication of any disputes brought by a third party against you concerning or arising from your use of a domain name registered with us or your use of our domain name registration services, you (but not Network Solutions) agree to submit to subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division and the courts of your domicile. You agree that in the event a domain name dispute arises with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below in this Agreement. If we are notified that a complaint has been filed with a judicial or administrative body regarding your use of our d omain name registration services, you agree not to make any changes to your domain name record without our prior approval. We may not allow you to make changes to such domain name record until (i) we are directed to do so by the judicial or administrative body, or (ii) we receive notification by you and the other party contesting your registration and use of our domain name registration services that the dispute has been settled. Furthermore, you agree that if you are subject to litigation regarding your registration and use of our domain name registration services, we may deposit control of your domain name record into the registry of the judicial body by supplying a party with a registrar certificate from us. You agree that we will comply with all court orders, domestic or international, directed against you and/or the domain name registration.

8. No Guaranty. You agree that, by registration of your chosen domain name, such registration does not confer immunity from objection to either the registration or use of your domain name.

9. Revocation. You agree that we may suspend, cancel or transfer your services, including, but not limited to, domain name registration services in order to: (i) correct mistakes made by us, another registrar or the registry in registering your chosen domain name, or (ii) to resolve a dispute under our domain name dispute policy.

From what you stated, your client supposedly never received any notice of an
action for such. What happened afterwards is unfortunate.

Your client can still go to Court. But...good luck.

It sucks. But that's life sometimes.

gdtechindia · 12-22-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Zan

When we register domain names with our preferred registrar, we agree to one
of its provisions:
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal_...ageid=REG%5FSA

http://www.enom.com/terms/agreement.asp

http://www.networksolutions.com/lega...-agreement.jsp

From what you stated, your client supposedly never received any notice of an
action for such. What happened afterwards is unfortunate.

Your client can still go to Court. But good luck.

It sucks. But that's life sometimes.

Nice find

You are really Electrifying Guy

I am not much interested in the domain, neither the client is. But its interesting to see how such cases proceed.

IAmAllanShore · 12-22-2006, 11:12 PM

Some good responses above, one kinda silly

In any event, here is the actual decision:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/819801.htm
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

Or, just read below:

Quote:

PARTIES

Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki L. Little of Schultz & Little, L.L.P., 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO, 63005-1221. Respondent is Gobind a/k/a Gobind Systems (“Respondent”), 445 Main Market, Nawanshahar 167845, IN.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info>, registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically October 16, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint October 18, 2006.

On October 17, 2006, Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names are registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On October 19, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 8, 2006, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bestenterprisecarrentals.info and postmaster@findenterprisecarrentals.info by e-mail.

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On November 14, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. The domain names that Respondent registered, <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark.

2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names.

3. Respondent registered and used the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, is a well-known automobile rental company. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including the ENTERPRISE mark (Reg. No. 1,343,167 issued June 18, 1985).

Respondent registered the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names January 13, 2006. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that offer Internet users links to both the Complainant’s website as well as websites of Complainant’s competitors.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant established with extrinsic evidence in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the ENTERPRISE mark through registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration and extensive use of the ENTERPRISE mark for over twenty years is sufficient to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding: “Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (finding: “Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names that Respondent registered, <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names feature Complainant’s entire ENTERPRISE mark and add the generic terms “car rentals,” which have an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business, and the terms “best” and “find.” The Panel finds that the addition of generic terms to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”).

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

Complainant established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the disputed domain names. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names. In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

Complainant contends the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to a website that features links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names and is not authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s ENTERPRISE mark in any way. In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleged that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using domain names that contain Complainant’s protected mark when Respondent has no permission to do so. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain names, <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info>, to operate websites that provide Internet users with links to various competing automobile rental companies. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).

Furthermore, Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of and affiliation with the resulting websites. Internet users are likely to connect the resulting websites with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such use of the domain names for Respondent’s own commercial gain is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v. Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users to the respondent's website).

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bestenterprisecarrentals.info> and <findenterprisecarrentals.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: November 27, 2006.

Originally Posted by Dave Zan

Your client can still go to Court. But...good luck.

Already been moved, http://whois.domaintools.com/findent...arrentals.info , but can go to court to get it back possibly... but really? This is one that's not worth the effort on many levels.

That being said, for the benefit of others, if a UDRP is lost, filing with almost any appropriate jurisdiction (Details at icann.org , of course) and sending proof within the stated period will cause ICANN to delay transferring the domain until the case is decided/dismissed.

-Allan

kdom · 12-23-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Zan

Your client can still go to Court. But...good luck.

Not likely. The agreement calls for binding arbitration. No court will hear you!

IAmAllanShore · 12-23-2006, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by kdom

Not likely. The agreement calls for binding arbitration. No court will hear you!

Not true at all...

UDRP 4(k):
"

k. Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

"

-Allan

gdtechindia · 12-23-2006, 11:53 PM

the domain has been moved to the other party.

but it was interesting to see all the things as they worked.

the client wasn't interested in the domain, but i guess if he was, he could have created problems for Rent A Car. Or atleast made them spend more time, money and effort

IAmAllanShore · 12-24-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by gdtechindia

the client wasn't interested in the domain, but i guess if he was, he could have created problems for Rent A Car. Or atleast made them spend more time, money and effort

Not really?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=271953

Well, only if he himself was willing to spend more time + money + effort on what was, yet again, and ultimately failed expedition.

-Allan

gdtechindia · 12-24-2006, 03:18 AM

the domain was about to expire on its own and would have went into drop list soon

12-22-2006, 01:08 AM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
gdtechindia Account Suspended Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 175	who has rights to domain ?? We have a client with two domains bestenterpriserentals.info findenterprisecarrentals.info and one more similar domain the company says that enterpriserentals is their TM Our client didn't check his email and when checked it after say two months, he found that 2 - 3 notices sent and decision given in favour of the other party by >> http://www.adrforum.com/ what should our client do now ?? he has no interest in the domains, but he only seeks a compensation of say $ 200 to transfer both domains to the other party ? What say

12-22-2006, 03:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
StoneRoses Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: PetInsurance.tv Posts: 2,324	I would say that, he is not entitled to anything,as he didn't respond to any emails,who goes 2 months without checking emails?, nobody i know.I find that very strange,didn't check them or chose to ignore them?. He has lost the case and to my mind that is that, i think had he answered the emails,if as you say he isn't interested in the domains he would have got his reg fee back and costs maybe not $200, but enough to break even. IMHO they should let it go and learn from it, Thanks __________________ All prices i quote on my names are valid for 48 hours only from the time quoted.

	LeadRefs	Forum Sponsorship
	Want to sell your domain? LeadRefs.com finds multiple potential buyers to contact instantly!

12-22-2006, 08:33 AM	#3 (permalink)
hamerz New Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 18	I've not heard of single side arbitration. What authority does ardforum.com have over domain names? Now if it was http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm That would be a different story.

12-22-2006, 01:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
ekal Play up Pompey! Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,324	This is a fairly clear cut case. 1) enterpriserentals is a TM that was infringed on 2) your client didn't defend themselves 3) the case has already been decided. You had a slim chance of getting $200 before the case, but now you have none. Hence, he'll need to hand over the domain

12-22-2006, 01:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
floatingworld dawnofthefloatingworld Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: nightlesscity Posts: 3,413	ignore them subject to receiving a communication from ICANN. So they won't pay $200? so let em wait.

12-23-2006, 11:53 PM	THREAD STARTER #14 (permalink)
gdtechindia Account Suspended Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 175	the domain has been moved to the other party. but it was interesting to see all the things as they worked. the client wasn't interested in the domain, but i guess if he was, he could have created problems for Rent A Car. Or atleast made them spend more time, money and effort

12-24-2006, 03:18 AM	THREAD STARTER #16 (permalink)
gdtechindia Account Suspended Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 175	the domain was about to expire on its own and would have went into drop list soon

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)