- Impact
- 13,480
Thoughts?
it just says complaint denied @ wipo.int
Perhaps they have done it differently this time, just becauseAw, shoot, they didn't used to publish the outcome until the decision was posted, and that usually takes at least a day.
Notre service vous conseille, vous assiste et vous représente pour protéger vos marques et vos modèles en France et dans tous les pays du monde, avec le concours de correspondants hautement qualifiés.
https://domainnamewire.com/2024/04/16/because-com-cybersquatting-claim-denied/
The fact that the Complainant itself paid five figures to buy the dictionary word domain on the aftermarket makes it hard to argue that a later buyer of the domain name bought the domain to target the Complainant’s specific trademark.
What's really crazy about that, @cooljub , is that Because.fr is not the Complainant.
Yep. French trademark owner going after the .com, when they don't have the .fr.
What's really crazy about that, @cooljub , is that Because.fr is not the Complainant.
Yep. French trademark owner going after the .com, when they don't have the .fr.
The Complainant was the owner of the disputed domain name until December 31, 2021, when the disputeddomain name was not timely renewed.
DomainTools shows a Whois record on October 29, 2021, with Network Solutions as the registrar and a registrar expiration date of December 3, 2021. The next record is on December 5, showing an update date of December 3, two years added to the registration, and the domain at GoDaddy.
Assuming if the complainant is of the belief that they lost the domain due to expiration
That is indeed what the Complainant certified to have happened.
The Complainant was the owner of the disputed domain name until December 31, 2021, when the disputed domain name was not timely renewed.
The Respondent purchased it on Sedo.
Which leaves at leastthreefour possibilities:
speculation on what may have happened to the domain in December, 2021: perhaps someone from inside Complainant had access to renewal and performed it but to his/her own benefit (just a hypothesis).
Yes, but was it certified by the panelists?
There is a difference of opinion among panelists about whether they should do their own research.
But, more importantly, the point in question is not relevant to anything that is required to be proven under the UDRP.
The Complainant stated in the Complaint that they didn't pay the renewal. They are better positioned than anyone else in the world to know what they paid or didn't pay.
Whatever else may have gone on at Netsol, within the Complainant's organization, with their outside IT contractor, etc., is simply not germane to the dispute between the Complainant and the Respondent. That dispute - i.e. the UDRP case - is over whether the Respondent acquired and used the domain name on account of the Complainant's trademark, or whether the name was purchased because of its value as a dictionary word.
If you wake up in the morning and your car is missing from the driveway, then you might want to first make sure you are current on the payments and that the checks have cleared.
I think it's critical that the panelists be privy to the relevant domain logs directly from the registry or maybe even certain information from the registrar.
Had the Complainant had a competent and experienced domain lawyer, they would have researched/confirmed/theorized if, how, and why the domain renewal went unpaid.