news UDRP FILED ON RCC.COM FROM ROYAL CARRIBEAN CRUISES

tonyk2000 said:

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...

Click to expand...

I'll never rely on UDRP panel to deliver good judgement. If I have a very important 3-L and someone comes for it, I'm heading to court.

dande said:

I'll never rely on UDRP panel to deliver good judgement. If I have a very important 3-L and someone comes for it, I'm heading to court.

Click to expand...

My sentiment exactly, you have no choice but cooperate with the UDRP process but should one lose a valuable .com then court is the next step. The whole France.com thing bothers me and I hope the ex owner of the domain pursues it in court.

I think UDRP panels used to dismiss complaints if there is pending court action, without making any findings on either of 3 elements. Maybe @jberryhill can enlighten us on this?

In any case, it would be practical to receive an outcome of UDRP first. In most cases, going to a court would be more time consuming, and what if there are different jurisdictions involved - registrar, registrant and complainant... saying nothing about U.S./Virginia where Verisign registry is.

Hi
just wanted to note these excerpts

jberryhill said:

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.

Click to expand...

so, could one conclude that a domain, which has been appropriately targeted using ppc to monetize it, can constitute legitimate usage, for a respondent in a UDRP
but using a "sales lander" is not considered "legitimate usage", in a defense for a respondent?

jberryhill said:

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, as I always park first, then maybe do something later.

jberryhill said:

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

Click to expand...

so, would you say:
based on the cases for those 3 letter names, and perhaps all 3 letter com/net and even .org, domains....
that if not developing them -
then it's best to park it versus using a "sales lander".. as a means of protection or some assurance that it is being used "legitimately"?

and, if so:
does using a "This Doman May Be For Sale" text banner or link on a ppc page, that is appropriately targeted, still fall within the legitimate usage parameter?

Thanks

imo...

biggie said:

so, could one conclude that a domain, which has been appropriately targeted using ppc to monetize it, can constitute legitimate usage, for a respondent in a UDRP
but using a "sales lander" is not considered "legitimate usage", in a defense for a respondent?

Click to expand...

Correct, with one minor additional point below. I linked the cases above for a reason, since they all illustrate various fact patterns.

biggie said:

based on the cases for those 3 letter names, and perhaps all 3 letter com/net and even .org, domains....
that if not developing them -
then it's best to park it versus using a "sales lander".. as a means of protection or some assurance that it is being used "legitimately"?

Click to expand...

As long as it is parked appropriately. That is typically one of two things.

One example of appropriate three letter domain parking is typified by <jdm.com>.

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

In the present case, the disputed domain name consists of a three letter acronym, which the evidence shows has a very wide range of potential associations and is in fact in use by numerous business other than the Complainant. The Respondent asserts without contradiction from the Complainant that “JDM” is commonly used as an abbreviation for “Japanese Domestic Market” in respect to automobiles and automobile parts, and submits evidence that all its use of the disputed domain name has been in connection with that market.

...

The Respondent also appears to use those domain names, even where offered for sale, for PPC links related to the subject matter associated with the descriptive term or if relevant, acronym.

...

Taking all these matters into account, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with the principles summarized in WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.10.2 and 2.9.

--------

Pretty simple. "JDM" is a generic acronym for Japanese Domestic Market which is the term used for auto parts and supplies for Japanese cars which are sold in Japan, and are exported by non-manufacturers, since the domestic distribution includes parts that are not manufactured for export.

The PPC lander is consistent with the generic meaning of the acronym.

I mean, this is not rocket science, it's the same thing as using a dictionary word to advertise goods and services for which that dictionary word is generic.

biggie said:

does using a "This Doman May Be For Sale" text banner or link on a ppc page, that is appropriately targeted, still fall within the legitimate usage parameter?

Click to expand...

Selling something you legitimately own and use is not illegitimate. I don't understand the point of "may" be for sale. I've seen people do that, and the only thing I can think is "WTF is that supposed to mean?"

Is there someone who thinks that "selling domain names is bad, so if I use 'may be for sale' then it's not really for sale?"

Seriously, what is that "may" nonsense supposed to do for anyone?

No, there is nothing wrong with advertising that a domain name is for sale, in conjunction with monetizing that domain name for a subject for which it is a generic acronym.

In fact, one of the Uniregistry market landers is set up for that specific purpose: Shopping-Services:Personalization is a lander that is specifically designed for things like acronyms, monograms, etc., because pretty much any three letter combination is going to be valuable to someone as their personal initials, if nothing else.

Again, an example of the combined "acronym lander" and "for sale" link is discussed in the <dky.com> decision which I linked above, and please take a quick look at dky.com:



https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2015/d2015-1757.html

The Respondent is in the business of monetizing "generic" and three-letter domain names. As submitted by the Respondent, a number of previous panels have found that as long as this business is not infringing on a complainant's rights in a mark, the Policy allows registration and use of domain names for this purpose. See, e.g., R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc. v. Gregory Ricks / Whois Privacy Corp. / Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2014-2041.


... Although the website at the Disputed Domain Name is a PPC link page, the links currently (and historically) featured on that page are unspecific. They do not reference the Complainant or its competitors, or the construction industry or any similar industry. They do not attempt to trade off the Complainant's (nor do they appear to trade off a third party's) name or trade mark. There is no evidence to suggest that the Disputed Domain Name was registered with any knowledge of the Complainant.


Therefore, the Complainant does not succeed in establishing the second element of the Policy.

----------

Now, there are sales landers and there are sales landers.

Consider the case (also linked above) involving the sales lander used with <tnp.com>. On legitimate interest:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2017/d2017-0669.html

In light of the Panel’s findings under sections 6.A and 6.C, it is not necessary for the Panel to address this issue at any length. However, the Panel notes that in the section of its decision dealing with bad faith, it concludes that the Respondent “registered the disputed domain name for its inherent value as a three-letter domain name with numerous potential meanings without targeting the Complainant and its trademarks …” one of the indicia of a right or legitimate interest.

Well let's have a look at that sales lander:




Do you understand what I mean by "There are sales landers and there are sales landers"?

Read that copy on the sales lander.

If you have domain name that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, do you think it is worth a couple of minutes of your time to EXPLAIN WHY IT IS VALUABLE?

So, yes, a sales lander is fine, if you are going to use it to actually sell the domain name instead of taking an asset worth that much money and just slapping "for sale" on it. That's just asking for trouble.

Now, is this going to apply if the domain name is:

IBM.tld

BMW.tld

Probably not. Even with three letter combinations, there are ones which are famous trademarks and the way that some domainers come up with crap like Iowa's Beautiful Men, or Big Mean Women, as a mere pretext for registering things like IBM or BMW is, again, just plain dumb.

But when you take a name like RCC and plug it into Acronym Finder or Wikipedia, and can plainly see that it has a wide variety of meanings, with no one meaning being particularly prominent, then it is likewise obvious that the name has potential commercial value to many different parties, including businesses yet-to-be which would like to have a non-exclusive three-letter name.

tonyk2000 said:

I think UDRP panels used to dismiss complaints if there is pending court action, without making any findings on either of 3 elements. Maybe @jberryhill can enlighten us on this?

Click to expand...

It's up to the panel. The UDRP leaves it up to the panel whether or not they want to issue a decision, even if a court case has been filed.

UDRP Rule 18:

Effect of Court Proceedings


(a) In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.

Gstaad.com is one of the cases I defended in which this was an issue. The Complainant filed the UDRP and then requested a delay in order to "pursue settlement". It wasn't much of a discussion, and they actually requested the delay in order to file a suit, and then came back saying they wanted to end the UDRP:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-2601

6.13 As is reflected in paragraph 4.15 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, although the Policy and issues of trade mark infringement significantly overlap, they are not the same thing. Therefore, in many cases it will be quite possible and proper for a panel to proceed to issue a decision in UDRP proceedings even if there are parallel court proceedings. Nevertheless, if there is a common factual dispute in both proceedings, it may be preferable that a panel leaves this matter to the courts, which are likely to be procedurally better equipped to determine that dispute than a panel appointed under the UDRP.


6.14 In the present case, the proceedings in the Swiss courts appear to involve claims of trade mark infringement by reason of the use of the Domain Name. However, it is far from clear what, if any, factual issues are in dispute between the parties. It is for a party who wants proceedings under the UDRP suspended or terminated because of parallel court proceedings to persuade a panel as to why this is necessary, if the parties are not in agreement that this is the right course of action. The Complainant has failed to persuade the Panel that termination would be appropriate in this case. In the circumstances, the Panel will proceed to a substantive decision.

jberryhill said:

Do you understand what I mean by "There are sales landers and there are sales landers"?

Click to expand...

yes, I can clearly see what you mean

thank you very much for your detailed and insightful replies

imo...

Good. I know I’m making sense to me, but I’m never sure if I’m making sense to anyone else.

Update is
Claim Denied ..
@BoothDomains confirmed at linkedin
Congratz mate...

Riz M. said:

Update is
Claim Denied ..
@BoothDomains confirmed at linkedin
Congratz mate...

Click to expand...

Can't wait to read the details (yipee!!!)

Thank you all! Very happy with the decision!

Published earlier today:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-1042

It appears that the following actions of current registrant, among other things, prompted the Complainant to start UDRP:

(quote begin)

On April 15, 2019, the Respondent’s broker sent an email to a member of the Complainant’s staff which contained what appeared to be several mis-addressed communications from the Complainant’s customers. Said broker’s email stated, inter alia, “Do you want me to continue to forward these emails? / I think you have a major problem here, not just because of the confusion from your customers not getting their emails answered but also email security. At some point RCC.com is going to sell and the new owners may not be as nice to forward your info. / Let me know if you have time to talk this week.” Said Complainant’s staff member states in an Affidavit of May 6, 2019, that the email correspondence forwarded by the Respondent’s broker contained confidential information pertaining to the Complainant’s guests and business operations, which had been obtained by the Respondent. The Affidavit also states the said staff member telephoned the Respondent’s broker on April 16, 2019 to discuss the potential sale of the disputed domain name in exchange for USD 250,000.

(quote end)

tonyk2000 said:

On April 15, 2019, the Respondent’s broker sent an email to a member of the Complainant’s staff which contained what appeared to be several mis-addressed communications from the Complainant’s customers. Said broker’s email stated, inter alia, “Do you want me to continue to forward these emails? / I think you have a major problem here, not just because of the confusion from your customers not getting their emails answered but also email security. At some point RCC.com is going to sell and the new owners may not be as nice to forward your info. / Let me know if you have time to talk this week.” Said Complainant’s staff member states in an Affidavit of May 6, 2019, that the email correspondence forwarded by the Respondent’s broker contained confidential information pertaining to the Complainant’s guests and business operations, which had been obtained by the Respondent. The Affidavit also states the said staff member telephoned the Respondent’s broker on April 16, 2019 to discuss the potential sale of the disputed domain name in exchange for USD 250,000.

(quote end)

Click to expand...

1. I smell a sale coming up

2. If I were Booth I would increase the price

3. It's a dangerous game Booth played, in my opinion you don't assign any email accounts to a domain that's for sale. By emailing Royal Caribbean and telling them he is receiving their emails the decision could just as easily have gone the other way. It might be ok to pull this stunt on a lesser domain but a domain with this value makes it a dangerous gamble, and as we can see it was a gamble because the UDRP was filed.

MapleDots said:

By emailing Royal Caribbean and telling them he is receiving their emails the decision could just as easily have gone the other way.

Click to expand...

I don't even expect a guy like @BoothDomains to be doing outbounding of this nature or any at all. Great domains sell itself and sells better.

Like @MapleDots says, creating email account and emailing Royal Caribbean is the most nonsensical thing to do, not even for amateur, let alone guys that are seeing 7-8 figure sales on regular basis. What a desperation!

MapleDots said:

in my opinion you don't assign any email accounts to a domain that's for sale

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Respondent was lucky in this case. The complainant did not do all the homework (why the Respondent, who is routinely using uniregistry parking dns for all his domains, and, accordingly, does not receive emails, elected to reconfigure this particular domain? With proper wording in the Complaint, it would not be impossible to convinience the Panel that the domain is used in bad faith, and, in this case, regged in bad faith). And, of course, 3 members panel helped the respondent to win. Some "pro-complainant" single panelist might well order the domain transfer.

Is setting up email on a domain that is for sale really a bad thing? It's your domain you can do what you want with it. It may be a step too far to use is as leverage to sell the name (It didn't appear to affect this case though), but to forward misdirected emails is helping the business in question not impeding it.

MadAboutDomains said:

Is setting up email on a domain that is for sale really a bad thing? It's your domain you can do what you want with it. It may be a step too far to use is as leverage to sell the name (It didn't appear to affect this case though), but to forward misdirected emails is helping the business in question not impeding it.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember a case where it was similar and the defendant lost because the complainant showed there was confusion by the emails ending up with the wrong person.

Like I said, it could have gone either way, Booth was very fortunate.

MadAboutDomains said:

Is setting up email on a domain that is for sale really a bad thing?

Click to expand...

PS. There is enough to worry about when selling domains and the UDRP process is always hanging over your head. By not using a domain and only having it for sale one cannot possibly explain why a similar address than a potential end users is in use.

MadAboutDomains said:

It's your domain you can do what you want with it.

Click to expand...

Yup but now try to explain why your domain is on a lander and you just happen to have a very similar email address to the potential end user.

Now take that a step closer and even send the potential end user the emails.

OMG, talk about risk!!

MapleDots said:

I seem to remember a case where it was similar and the defendant lost because the complainant showed there was confusion by the emails ending up with the wrong person.

Like I said, it could have gone either way, Booth was very fortunate.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I wonder whether setting up an MX record to use your domain for emails, in itself, is ever a bad thing in a UDRP? I'd be interested to know. That is without any threats to the complainant about their businesses' emails reaching you when they shouldn't...

MapleDots said:

I seem to remember a case where it was similar and the defendant lost because the complainant showed there was confusion by the emails ending up with the wrong person.

Click to expand...

Definitely. I also remember this case. Cannot find it now, unfortunately....

MapleDots said:

Yup but now try to explain why your domain is on a lander and you just happen to have a very similar email address to the potential end user.

Now take that a step closer and even send the potential end user the emails.

OMG, talk about risk!!

Click to expand...

The thing is that the complainant wouldn't know which emails are set up, it's just an MX record on the domain, not 'email addresses' per se.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use email on a domain that you own that is for sale, the first one being that you might want to email in/out from the domain to prove that you legitimately own it.

I own a domain (MBCanada(dot)com) for a car forum and and I used the info@ address for a little while. It was innocent enough until I started receiving corporate emails for Mercedes-Benz Canada. The very first thing I did was remove that address and change it to something else.

With the usa using MBUSA.com people naturally assumed canada was using info@mbcanada.

I took all the necessary steps to assure I would not lose in a possible UDRP. I was certainly not bold enough to forward the emails to Mercedes and ask them to buy the domain. Hell I knew they wanted it because they owned the .ca and I certainly was not going to risk my asset by doing something silly.

I'm still not convinced that the chance of misdirected emails is a sign of bad faith. Wouldn't they have to prove that you knew that their email addresses were in the format info@mb[COUNTRYNAME].com and that you registered it to capitalise on that?

If the email address that you are using are being used as just one part of the many legitimate uses that you have for the name, then wouldn't that be another plus point in your favour in a UDRP? They couldn't prove that you were actively using a specific email address against them without having received an email from it showing that you were pretending to be Mercedes. Also you could just have a catch all on there so they couldn't argue specifically that your server accepted an email at info@... so you you are using the name in bad faith.

That's why I agree that letting them know that you are receiving their mail as a selling tactic for the domain is indeed a step too far but I'm still not sold on an all out ban on setting up email on a domain that is for sale, nor do I think that forwarding misdirected email is a bad thing, it could be argued that you're just being a good citizen of planet earth.

Maybe I'm just naive lol

MadAboutDomains said:

Maybe I'm just naive lol

Click to expand...

No, I don't think you are naive at all, I think some members will probably share your view point but I talk from experience when I say corporate email is a very serious business. I used to run a multi million dollar corporation and if someone had even a SIMILAR domain and had forwarded me even a single email that was meant for my company then I would not have stopped at a lost UDRP. I would definitely have mobilized our lawyers and pursued to the next step. It is only after I lost in court (if that was the case) that I would have entertained the notion of a purchase.

This is what it is like in corporate, it is all power play and lets file, in a lot of cases the UDRP will be just the beginning. Remember in corporate these legal fees are all tax deductions and there is no other thought process than "LETS GO LEGAL".

Mr Booth still needs to be very careful.

Thanks for your thoughts and insights @MapleDots!