The case is absolute nonsense, but its a good example of treating domain name comprised of a dictionary word.
Complainant must establish all three elements to succeed:
1. The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark
+ The disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
(dribbble=dribble)
The fact that domain name is comprised of a dictionary word (ordinary English word) is not
relevant at this stage !
The Panel stated that: "...the minimal difference between the complainants trademark and the
disputed domain name constitutes confusing similarity under the Policy"
As we can see, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
complainants trademark.
2. Complainant must prove respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name.
The Panel skipped the legitimate interest factor and consider the respondents lack of
bad faith and the complainants reverse domain name hijacking.
But its worth to mention Wipo 3.0 (2.10.1):
"Panels have recognized that merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or
phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent; panels
have held that mere arguments that a domain name corresponds to a dictionary term/phrase will not
necessarily suffice. In order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its
dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended
for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party
trademark rights.
For example, a hypothetical respondent may well have a legitimate interest in the domain name
<orange.com> if it uses the domain name for a website providing information about the fruit or the
color orange. The same respondent would not however have a legitimate interest in the domain
name if the corresponding website is aimed at goods or services that target a third-party trademark.
Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the
respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or
phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning."
3. Complainant must prove respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, under the third requirement of the Policy, the Panel took into account that the word
“dribble” is an ordinary English word, and its just an indicator of a good faith.
The fact that respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1997 (12 years before the
complainant adopted its trademark) + "there is no suggestion in the record in this case that the
respondent had any notice of the complainant’s plan" is much more important to show respondents
good faith !
