anf
Established Member
- Impact
- 253
Here is the link: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/guzzini-com-korean-domain-registrant-wanted-100000-but-got-udrped/
So, wtf happened? I just cannot understand it. Here the decision:
So, guess what, any investor wants to sell a name for more than he payed. Does it mean that any investor is using all of his names in bad faith? WFT??
Here are the paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the Policy:
According to the case, the Respondent regged the name in 2001. For 18 years, the web site displayed an “under construction” page. So, the Complainant contacted the owner and offered him money. The deal did not go through, and UDRP was fired.
As i thought before, the indication of a bad faith is
But the owner was sitting on this name for 18 years, he never contacted the Complainant. On the contrary, it's the Complainant who has contacted the owner. As i see it, there is absolutely no PROOF or even indication of
Moreover, i always thought that any investor can say that he offers a domain name not
primarily to the complainant, but to any party who wold like to buy it (and this is the true actually). Moreover,
guzzini is such a term that can be used for anyting: tech company, food, recreational activity. There are a lot of similar trademarked names in different areas.
The same with
Where are the PROOFS?
So, i completely cannot understand any reason behind this decision. There are no proofs of bad faith here.
What do you think?
So, wtf happened? I just cannot understand it. Here the decision:
Accordingly, the evidence shows that the Respondent knew of and had sought to take unfair advantage of the identity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks and prevented the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name in order to resell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for commercial gain. The fact that the Respondent initially sought to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for the amount of EUR 100,000 – which is significantly more than the actual cost that was related to register the disputed domain name – further shows the Respondent’s bad faith.
As the conduct described above falls squarely within paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the Policy, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
So, guess what, any investor wants to sell a name for more than he payed. Does it mean that any investor is using all of his names in bad faith? WFT??
Here are the paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the Policy:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct
According to the case, the Respondent regged the name in 2001. For 18 years, the web site displayed an “under construction” page. So, the Complainant contacted the owner and offered him money. The deal did not go through, and UDRP was fired.
As i thought before, the indication of a bad faith is
respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark
But the owner was sitting on this name for 18 years, he never contacted the Complainant. On the contrary, it's the Complainant who has contacted the owner. As i see it, there is absolutely no PROOF or even indication of
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant
Moreover, i always thought that any investor can say that he offers a domain name not
primarily to the complainant, but to any party who wold like to buy it (and this is the true actually). Moreover,
guzzini is such a term that can be used for anyting: tech company, food, recreational activity. There are a lot of similar trademarked names in different areas.
The same with
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct
Where are the PROOFS?
So, i completely cannot understand any reason behind this decision. There are no proofs of bad faith here.
What do you think?
Last edited: