3 letters .com UDRP taken out by UDRP

[dom35]

The domain is .cmz.com.

It looks investing in three letters is very risky.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0294.html

 

[LatinPride]

Thanks for posting. Gives everyone with a 3 char something to think about.

 

[Peter]

Looks like the original owner of the domain name continually broke the rules and is most likely a contributing factor.:-

The Respondent transferred the domain name <cmz.com> to a new registrar, Bizcn.com,Inc., six days after the Complaint was filed. According to paragraph 8 of the Policy, this is not allowed. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has clearly infringed this rule of the Policy. Consequently, there is a change in the language of the procedure because paragraph 11 of the Rules establishes that in the absence of an agreement between the parties the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

Furthermore, the cease and desist letter has been returned to the Complainant because the contact details given by the Respondent were insufficient. The Complainant asserts that this is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith as insufficient information for the data of the owner of the domain name has been provided. Many decisions have stated that this conduct is an evidence of the bad faith of the respondent’s registration

As shown above he had fake whois information.

The domain was also for sale on SEDO which proves he had no intention of using it, he demanded $35,000 for transfering the domain name.

In his response to the claims against him he claimed the following:-

The Respondent further asserts that one Ming Xing Ball Bearing Factory from Chong Qing City (重庆市明鑫轴承厂) has applied for the registration of the mark CMZ on April 13, 1998 in class 7 and the Respondent has entered into an agreement with the registered trademark owner to register the domain name <cmz.com> and to construct and maintain the website for the registered trademark owner.

If that was the case why did he list it on SEDO. Also why did he offer it to the complainant for $35,000.

It looks like he has been very stupid and the outcome was the only reasonable outcome that could have come from the proceedings.

 

[LatinPride]

Filth,

I just got into the reading of the entire case...

Yeah, I'd say the respondent in this case created his own demise.

He did PLENTY to ruin himself in this one. As you continue reading the case you start to side with the company who owns the TM.

"It is important to note that the trademark registration document adduced by the Respondent categorically states that the document is not the official document of the Trademark Registry of the People¡¯s Republic of China and cannot be admitted as evidence in law." - that's gotta hurt Gene

 

[.X.]

Looks like the original owner of the domain name continually broke the rules and is most likely a contributing factor.:-





As shown above he had fake whois information.

The domain was also for sale on SEDO which proves he had no intention of using it, he demanded $35,000 for transfering the domain name.

In his response to the claims against him he claimed the following:-



If that was the case why did he list it on SEDO. Also why did he offer it to the complainant for $35,000.

It looks like he has been very stupid and the outcome was the only reasonable outcome that could have come from the proceedings.

I agree "Filth" ...It looks as if the owner is using the acronym in bad faith...Not a wise choice on the owners part.

 

[Dave_Z]

A real shame...looks like the registrant had it since 1995. And that's if it has
never changed hands.

The next question, though, is if the complainant is smart enough to get the
domain name back and switch nameservers to theirs. :D

 

[Peter]

A real shame...looks like the registrant had it since 1995.

According to the wipo document it was registered by him on the 31st of January 1999

 

[TT]

That decision really sets a loopsided precedence no matter what the original owner did with the name.

the trademark owner registered the mark in 1966 however in the early 80's & 90's had ample time to register the domain if they infact seen that the internet would have a substansial impact on business and as with most businesses they thought the internet was just some fad that would fade away. Thus meaning that they had around 10-15 years to make the decision to register it.

in 1999 anyone of us could have registered this domain in question as a last resort of remaining letters to have a 3 letter .com and anyone here having no particular use for the name itself would have parked it to resell. Now I do not agree with the owners negotiating tactics but its my opinion that many of us own generic 3 letter.coms that could be considered TM domains in alot of various countries ( they stated that the wording would be ENGLISH as it was originally registered in english so how does a chinese company get to file claim? ) Now are we supposed to surrender these names because of some company owning an acronym based TM as I see the decision WIPO took into account the company name "Construcciones Mecánicas Zumarraga" and acronymized it to thier benefit and if this is the case I personally and professionally own several trademarks that could now benefit me in WIPO decisions and I could now by this precedent setting decision file claims to these domains that are listed at sedo for sale.

I DO NOT like this decision whatsoever abd it just goes to prove that these decisions should be made by the courts and not some hired so called impartial party.

People beware these companies are going to start filing these ridiculous claims hide your good names.

just my 2cents

TT

 

[Peter]

the trademark owner registered the mark in 1966 however in the early 80's & 90's had ample time to register the domain if they infact seen that the internet would have a substansial impact on business and as with most businesses they thought the internet was just some fad that would fade away. Thus meaning that they had around 10-15 years to make the decision to register it.

If that was the deciding factor of any similar wipo decision then no wipo claim would be accepted. Just because the organization did not register the domain name does not mean that someone can use their trademark as part of a domain name.

 

[fonzie_007]

I draw question with the panelist in this case. Her reasoning at times is shallow and lacking an understanding of how this decision may impact other LLL domain decisions.

A registrant is suppose to have know of a spanish trademark because it has been a tm since 1966? Are domainers now suppose to check every single country before they registrar a domain even when they believe the domain is 100% generic? Moreover, previous precedents shows that a generic domains (LLL domains included) can be registered in good faith even though there may be a trademark on them.

Yeah, this guys contributed to his own demise. I'm curious if the decision would have turned out differently if he did not transfer the domain and come up with the dubious story about the Chinese factory.

I'm not sure how the appeals process works, but I certainly would consider it being there was only one panelist and decision may have far-reaching consequences.

 

[Peter]

A registrant is suppose to have know of a spanish trademark because it has been a tm since 1966? Are domainers now suppose to check every single country before they registrar a domain even when they believe the domain is 100% generic? Moreover, previous precedents shows that a generic domains (LLL domains included) can be registered in good faith even though there may be a trademark on them.

The owner of the domain name was clearly knowledgable of the company as he offered to sell the domain to them for $35,000

 

[fonzie_007]

The owner of the domain name was clearly knowledgable of the company as he offered to sell the domain to them for $35,000

I'm talking about at the time of registration, not at the time of negotiations. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know if the guy actually had knowledge of their TM up until he received the C&D.

 

[LatinPride]

I'm talking about at the time of registration, not at the time of negotiations. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know if the guy actually had knowledge of their TM up until he received the C&D.

I thought I had posted on this as well... I guess it didn't take.

I agree that it's quite a pain in the ass to go through international trademark searches to ensure that you aren't stepping on anyones toes.

I believe it's smart to protect your domain through development. And of course in development you have that lingering annoyance of international trademark violation.

I still have to side with the complainant in this case. The devious acts by the respondent are ridiculous. The respondent wasn't very smart I felt.

 

[Peter]

I'm talking about at the time of registration, not at the time of negotiations. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know if the guy actually had knowledge of their TM up until he received the C&D.

Unfortunately ignorance is never an excuse otherwise I could claim I had never heard of mcdonalds or microsoft. If ignorance was an excuse they would have to prove I did know.

As with everything you should ensure you know what you are doing dont just assume it will not be an infringement of any trademark, you MUST check first.

 

[fonzie_007]

Unfortunately ignorance is never an excuse otherwise I could claim I had never heard of mcdonalds or microsoft. If ignorance was an excuse they would have to prove I did know.

As with everything you should ensure you know what you are doing dont just assume it will not be an infringement of any trademark, you MUST check first.

This isn't just about ignorance, this is also about feasibility. How can you ever been 100% certain a domain isn't tm'ed somewhere by someone. Checking uspto.gov certainly isn't enough in this panelist's mind.

Your examples, stated above, are not generic terms. A better example would be registering a domain like apple.com. Apple is generic, but the term is trademarked. Ignorance isn't a valid defense, but there are times where someone could take a generic term like a LLL, check google, uspto.gov and everything may look clear, but the person still may be unknowably infringing.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Fonzie, did you read the whole decision? you need to read the whole thing to understand the decision (and by seeing some of the comments, people have not). This is not about generic or acronyms, this is about a shady respondant who offered a weak arguement and tricks. (Coincidently, some of the tricks the respondant tried to do is some of the "advise" given around here. The panel would have none of that).

So please people, read the whole thing to understand why the decision was made. I agree with the decision from the evidence and credibility given. The respondant did not lose this case because it was based solely on a TM acronym, he lost it because he was a moron, he lied, transferred the domain, requested Chineese be the language, changed the for sale page and present false evidince which hurt his credibility. That is why he lost.

 

[fonzie_007]

DNQ-
Yes, I read the whole decision as could be evidenced by my questions above: "I'm curious if the decision would have turned out differently if he did not transfer the domain and come up with the dubious story about the Chinese factory."

Nonetheless, I did not see anything in the decision that specifically qualified the decision based on the guy's shady actions. Of course, I read over it quickly, so please tell me if I missed something.

 

[Peter]

DNQ-
Yes, I read the whole decision as could be evidenced by my questions above: "I'm curious if the decision would have turned out differently if he did not transfer the domain and come up with the dubious story about the Chinese factory."

To be honest it is completely irrelevant wether the same decision would have been made. This decision was made on the evidence they had at hand and the testimonies of the complainant and the domain owner. Asking and answering questions such as what if's are not important as the result is pure conjecture.

The facts are he set out to deceive and he has paid a heavy price for that.

 

[fonzie_007]

To be honest it is completely irrelevant wether the same decision would have been made. This decision was made on the evidence they had at hand and the testimonies of the complainant and the domain owner. Asking and answering questions such as what if's are not important as the result is pure conjecture.

The facts are he set out to deceive and he has paid a heavy price for that.

Peter,

I thorougly disagree with you on this. As someone who has many LLL domains, my future rights and investments in these domains could be substantially affected by this decision. Yes, I'd like to hope I'm smarter than the dope in this decision. However, if someone ever files a UDRP on one of my LLL domains, I'm sure they'd cite this decision for support (assuming they did their research).

 

[Peter]

Nonetheless, I did not see anything in the decision that specifically qualified the decision based on the guy's shady actions. Of course, I read over it quickly, so please tell me if I missed something.

As he was someone who had a wipo against him he HAS to prove that he has acted in good faith. Lying about the use of the domain, trying to deceive by hiding evidence (such as the change in sale page as well as the content of the page), breaking wipo regulations (transferring the domain) and the fact he tried to sell the domain to the company only goes to show bad faith. If he had nothing to hide why did he take these actions.


EDIT just a note I responded to half of your post then the other half hence why it has shown as 2 posts.