news UDRP FILED ON RCC.COM FROM ROYAL CARRIBEAN CRUISES

EmpireNames.com · May 8, 2019

Hi Npers.
While checking Udrpsearch.com i found royal carribean filed udrp on RCC.com
does it make sense?
I believe the case shouldnt be accepted but case is now active..

MadAboutDomains · May 8, 2019

No mention of a registered trademark for RCC by Royal Caribbean: https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/bookmark?s=ia6iltdiaceje2hjm8n359o832

Also, no mention of RCC on their website https://www.google.com/search?q=site:royalcaribbean.com++"rcc"

I suspect that this one could be rejected at the first element for not being Identical or confusingly similar.

BaileyUK · May 8, 2019

Just a generic Uniregistry lander. Even the biggest companies try to put their own interpretation on UDRP guidelines. I wonder just how many realize they have to satisfy all criteria and mistakenly believe just one will do. Guess their lawyer advised 'Well it is possible to win - Its happened before, by the way this is the estimate of my costs and as you can see it's approximately 15% of the sellers asking price'

Mr. Deleted · May 8, 2019

jberryhill · May 8, 2019

This should be a fairly simple one to defend, given the history of the domain name and the apparent lack of any association between "RCC" and the complainant. I've seen "RCC" used more often for Roman Catholic Church. The base term here has a huge Wikipedia disambiguation page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCC

carob · May 8, 2019

jberryhill said:
The base term here has a huge Wikipedia disambiguation page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCC

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_Cola

MapleDots · May 8, 2019

WWF

World Wrestling Federation vs World Wildlife Federation

WWF now known as WWE

World Wrestling Entertainment

Much different case though because of how world famous the WWF trademark was.

MadAboutDomains · May 8, 2019

@MapleDots yes it's very different. WWE (was WWF) signed an agreement with WWF that restricted their use of the mark, they broke the terms of the agreement and it all fell apart with the supreme court in the UK siding with the World Wildlife Fund.

I think that the point that is being made here is that many companies and organisations use the initials RCC, so unless there is evidence to prove that the domain owner was targeting Royal Caribbean specifically, then it's easy to defend.

EmpireNames.com · May 8, 2019

sounds like royal carribean is ready for hallofshame.com

MapleDots · May 8, 2019

MadAboutDomains said:
@MapleDots yes it's very different. WWE (was WWF) signed an agreement with WWF that restricted their use of the mark, they broke the terms of the agreement and it all fell apart with the supreme court in the UK siding with the World Wildlife Fund.

I think that the point that is being made here is that many companies and organisations use the initials RCC, so unless there is evidence to prove that the domain owner was targeting Royal Caribbean specifically, then it's easy to defend.

The problem with this one was that both companies used the word FEDERATION in the name so it was inevitable that the wrestling company was on the losing end.

Mind you I don't think there was ever any UDRP involved in this dispute it was simply about the use of the 3 letters.

MadAboutDomains · May 8, 2019

MapleDots said:
The problem with this one was that both companies used the word FEDERATION in the name so it was inevitable that the wrestling company was on the losing end.

Interesting, where did you read that?

Steven McEvoy · May 8, 2019

Why dont they just buy the name...

MapleDots · May 8, 2019

MadAboutDomains said:
Interesting, where did you read that?

https://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/8/22/3259376/wwe-and-world-wildlife-fund-reach-a-settlement

MadAboutDomains · May 8, 2019

MapleDots said:
https://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/8/22/3259376/wwe-and-world-wildlife-fund-reach-a-settlement

Maybe I'm tired but that article doesn't say anything specific about use of the word FEDERATION in the name being the problem

, nor that this would be the cause of the wrestling company to lose like you said.

I just wondered where you got it from, from what I can see they just used the same mark, which was the 3 letters WWF which happened to clash from when the then 'WWWF' dropped the first W from their name in a rename in 1979.

At least in the WWF case the mark being fought over clearly matched, whereas in the case of RCC and the complaining party it doesn't on the face of it.

MapleDots · May 8, 2019

I just dug that up fairly fast, I know it dragged on for years but if you ask the google god you will find it.
That was just the first article I found.

MadAboutDomains · May 8, 2019

MapleDots said:
I just dug that up fairly fast, I know it dragged on for years but if you ask the google god you will find it.
That was just the first article I found.

It was the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund.

MapleDots · May 8, 2019

MadAboutDomains said:
It was the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund.

Wow, I could have sworn it was Federation.... hehe, I must have been hit with one of those flying chairs back in the wwf days

It will be interesting to see what happens with rcc.com

That company has a lot of gumption to attempt hijack of that domain.

Tristar · May 8, 2019

Steven McEvoy said:
Why dont they just buy the name...

Because some douchebag lawyer has convinced them to piss away money

If you want to see the worst look at NTP versus RIM . Instead of paying a couple mil for a license fee RIM decided to fight a patent . Rim lost multiple times, refused repeated extremely reasonable offers and then lost to the tune $612 million dollar . Apparently RIMs lawyers had booked over $100 Million in legals . Lawyers always win in a fight

jberryhill · May 9, 2019

MapleDots said:
The problem with this one was that both companies used the word FEDERATION in the name so it was inevitable that the wrestling company was on the losing end.

First off, the Wildlife and the Wrestling people never fought over a domain name. Because they both used "WWF" originally for different things, they had reached a contractual agreement as to what the parties could use those initials for. Because the Wrestling people eventually violated that agreement, they had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment - WWE. That had nothing to to with a domain name.

Later, well after the Wrestling people had abandoned the wwf.com domain name, the Wildlife people went after the domainer who had picked it up, not the Wrestling people:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v. Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks

Case No. D2006-0975

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International, (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, represented by Edwin Coe, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondents are:

(i) Moniker Online Services LLC, Florida, United States of America; and

(ii) Gregory Ricks, Texas, United States of America, represented by John B. Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq., United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed Domain Name <wwf.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.

--------------

If you are interested generally in three-letter name cases:

<wbw.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/98813.htm

<eaa.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/206309.htm

<toh.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/651060.htm

<jdm.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1182

<tnp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0669

<dky.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1757

<qlp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case=D2013-1691

<usu.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0761.html

<don.net>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1373.html

<fcc.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html

I will award bonus points to the first person who figures out two things that all of those three-letter name cases have in common.

MapleDots · May 9, 2019

jberryhill said:
Later, well after the Wrestling people had abandoned the wwf.com domain name, the Wildlife people went after the domainer who had picked it up, not the Wrestling people:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

Thank you for that, it was so long ago that I forgot exactly how it went but something about it still clicked for me.

Very interesting read, thank you so much for posting that

NameBuyer.com · May 9, 2019

jberryhill said:
First off, the Wildlife and the Wrestling people never fought over a domain name. Because they both used "WWF" originally for different things, they had reached a contractual agreement as to what the parties could use those initials for. Because the Wrestling people eventually violated that agreement, they had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment - WWE. That had nothing to to with a domain name.

Later, well after the Wrestling people had abandoned the wwf.com domain name, the Wildlife people went after the domainer who had picked it up, not the Wrestling people:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v. Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks

Case No. D2006-0975

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International, (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, represented by Edwin Coe, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondents are:

(i) Moniker Online Services LLC, Florida, United States of America; and

(ii) Gregory Ricks, Texas, United States of America, represented by John B. Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq., United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed Domain Name <wwf.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.

--------------

If you are interested generally in three-letter name cases:

<wbw.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/98813.htm

<eaa.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/206309.htm

<toh.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/651060.htm

<jdm.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1182

<tnp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0669

<dky.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1757

<qlp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case=D2013-1691

<usu.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0761.html

<don.net>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1373.html

<fcc.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html

I will award bonus points to the first person who figures out two things that all of those three-letter name cases have in common.

All represented by you, all wins, and RDNH is hard to come by, even when you think it is a given.

I need to personally thank you John. You put me on a good path years ago back in 2014 when I had to defend 4 names against Enterprise Rent-a-Car. I started my research by watching your Domain Sherpa interview which was published several months before my case. Your advice and knowledge you shared was invaluable.

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1579392.htm

In my case I considered it a full win, as Enterprise was trying to get 4 domains of mine, but only got 2 and they were throw-away domains that I likely would have dropped anyway. Since I was only slightly familiar with UDRP cases, I'd estimate that I probably put in 30-40 hours in 2 weeks researching cases to reference, taking notes, and responding to the complaint.

I believe domain parking was to blame for even losing the two throw-away domains. I couldn't control the ads 100% on the parked pages and they showed ads that were related to cars, making it easy to find a registered and used in bad faith decision on those 2 domains. Because of this, I've only used For Sale landing pages since 2014.

So a huge thank you to you John. If I had a dispute with a 3 character domain like any of the above, or any other high-value domain, I'd definitely use your services.

HFT · May 9, 2019

MadAboutDomains said:
It was the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund.

Show attachment 118643

HAHAH

cipcip · May 9, 2019

This UDRP procedure gives all the crap companies the right to take away your best domains. It's bull that you cannot have a 3 letter .com, as someone will say, no, it is my acronym, I want it... come on... RCC is a big acronym with over 200 meanings, check here: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RCC

I hope they will lose.

jberryhill · May 9, 2019

NameBuyer.com said:
I couldn't control the ads 100% on the parked pages and they showed ads that were related to cars, making it easy to find a registered and used in bad faith decision on those 2 domains. Because of this, I've only used For Sale landing pages since 2014.

Some parking systems do allow you to control the advertising categories.

Parking is a double-edged sword, since appropriately-targeted PPC use of a domain name can constitute a legitimate use under the second prong of the UDRP - which a "for sale" lander won't. Obviously, inappropriately-targeted PPC use is often the kiss of death. The attitude of some domainers that parking is "always bad" or even "always good" is a wee bit oversimplified.

No one has won more UDRP defenses than Name Administration Inc., and every one of the domain names in those proceedings was parked.

tonyk2000 · May 9, 2019

jberryhill said:
Obviously, inappropriately-targeted PPC use is often the kiss of death.

Like in avg.com case:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1381.html

(quote begin)

Underneath the heading on the left of the page there was a list of links under an italicized heading “Main” with the words “Internet Filtering”, “Free Credit Report”, “Internet Content Filtering”, “Family Safe Internet”, “Free Internet Filtering” and “Identity Theft Protection”. Linked pages advertised and provided links to websites of or advertising the Complainant’s competitors in the provision of software protecting against viruses, spyware and other electronic intrusions.

(quote end)

I personally think it was unfair decision. Just because of generic 2-click domainsponsor lander, which happened to include some terms that antivirus company might also use, valuable domain was lost (with a Dissenting Opinion of David E. Sorkin).

So, no 3-letter domain is safe in fact. And Royal Carribean still has a chance, unfortunately. So, the respondent should better pay for 3-members panel, and carefully select panelists...

news UDRP FILED ON RCC.COM FROM ROYAL CARRIBEAN CRUISES

Founder @ Rooted.com Previously Empire NamesTop Member

Top Member

Top Member

Slabaugh.com 800-266-2728Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Account Closed (Requested)

Top Member

Founder @ Rooted.com Previously Empire NamesTop Member

Account Closed (Requested)

Top Member

CFaDN.comTop Member

Account Closed (Requested)

Top Member

Account Closed (Requested)

Top Member

Account Closed (Requested)

New Member

Top Member

Account Closed (Requested)

Top Member

Established Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement