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

 

[fonzie_007]

Can you quote me any part of the decision that said his behavior was the sole reason for the decision and not for the fact he had a LLL domain? In my reading, I did not see any comment like this, which leads readers to believe that even if you have perfect behavior, having a LLL domain may still end you up in trouble.

 

[Peter]

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).

Yes they may well cite this decision but I doubt they would have much grounds unless you have tried the same sort of actions as this dope did. I am not a lawyer nor have I dealt with WIPO but my understanding is that if a previous decision is used as an example the same type of circumstances must be present. This person's actions probably contributed greatly with the decision as it showed he was untrustworthy and of a dubious character.

Can you quote me any part of the decision that said his behavior was the sole reason for the decision and not for the fact he had a LLL domain? In my reading, I did not see any comment like this, which leads readers to believe that even if you have perfect behavior, having a LLL domain may still end you up in trouble.

I did not say it was the sole reason but as stated in my previous post when you have a wipo against you you MUSt try and prove there was no bad faith. He has tried to show no bad faith by lying which in itself indicates bad faith.

put it this way if you were sitting on that board and you were presented with that evidence that he tried to present what would your decision be.

A) Side with the company that has a valid and proveable trademark since 1966
B) Side with the current owner who cannot prove there was no bad faith and has continually lied.

I know I would certainly have chosen the same decision they have done.

 

[labrocca]

The owner screwed up BIG time...this doesn't set a precedent. WIPO loves to point out all reasons involved in their decision but it's obvious that the owners poor actions are what resulted in the loss. If he had a decent lawyer this would all been prevented. Obviously the guy ain't too bright.

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.

Exactly DNQ gets it 100%.

 

[LatinPride]

Fonzie,

I have a few LLL domains as well. And my opinion was in favor of the respondents at first. But seeing all the measures this guy took and lied about several things, I had to side with the complainant in the end.

I read this entire case carefully and I understand why the decision was made in favor of the complainant.

Here are some excerpts from the report:

"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." - Boom, claims he's administering another companies website for them under their CMZ trade name , but can't produce official documentation.

If you read the bottom from 6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy to the end of the report, you'll have all logical explanations for decisions that were made.

I believe that the more cooperative and understanding you are about cases like this, the better it works out for everyone involved. I think credibility played a major role in this decision. No one appreciates being lied to.

Also, someone posted above... If he's administering the domain for another company why is he selling it for $35k , why is it listed on Sedo? Why all the b.s. ? That guy made his own bed... I hope he's sleeping well

 

[dom35]

Independently the unfair (and may be ilegal) way how the original owner behaved, I think this it is a terrible bad decision for those that invest in LLL domains.

In this case the arbitrer not even taked in account that the domain cmz.com was registered in January 31, 1999 while the cmz.es (Spain, the country of "Construcciones Mecanicas F. Zumarraga" accordingly to nic.es) was registered only in march 2, 1999. Not only that, the cmz.com.es is still available (anyone interested in register it ?).

Unfair bahaviour of the original buyer and terrible decision for the arbitror, not even taking care of the details mentioned before. The consecuences can be very serious for people that register domains in good faith (at the moment of registration this man I am sure he did it in that way or would have registered cmz.es or still can now 7 years later cmz.com.es.

 

[DNQuest.com]

again, this isn't about a TMed LLL, it was an owner who used it in bad faith. If you read, the panelist even cited a previous case where the LLL was won by the respondant. I stated teh reasons this guy lost, and it has nothing to do with it being LLL.

As far as citing a passage where character of the respondant was taken into account, how about where the panelist didn't elieve his stories???

 

[quality]

Ridiculous decision how many companies can claim to use cmz as an acronym???
Probably a big backhander was paid to the adjudicator in this case. Any three letter acronym has tons of companies that could claim legitimate rights......No 2 letter .com is safe if this kind of ruling were to be legitimitized.............those bureaucrats at ICANN and idiots that make these rulings should be hanged.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I have a great idea, how about reading the decision before you write a post blasting about items that WERE NOT a factor in the decision... geeesh

 

[Dave_Z]

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).

Then do your research as well.

Big corporations do what they can to protect their interests. We should too,
and in the times we live in we practically have no excuses to be complacent.

I don't like having to go the extra mile, either. But...let's be realistic here: for
certain things we enjoy so much, we have to if we're to protect them.

We didn't have to worry about spam either until a few years ago. Now we're
forced to research and take action in order for our businesses to continue on,
with as little hindrance as possible.

I'll be blunt: if you feel it's too much to handle, then it might be time to move
on. Only the tough and smart will survive.

 

[briman1970]

These are the key phrases in the entire document, "The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct subsequent to the registration of the disputed domain name is indicative that the registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith." and "The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant and finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has registered the domain name hoping to profit from the trademark owner’s desire to reflect its trademark in a corresponding domain name."

This is an obvious case of domain suicide. What an idiot!

This is a paragraph I have prepared in case I am ever in a similar situation with one of my 3-letter/3-character names. Feel free to use it in your own defense.

(edited to better reflect my supreme intellect - unfortunately this text is now classified information)

If he would've just not done all the stupid crap and explained his situation in a similar fashion, he wouldn't have lost the name IMO.

 

[armstrong]

This is a paragraph I have prepared in case I am ever in a similar situation with one of my 3-letter/3-character names. Feel free to use it in your own defense.

Nice text you got there, briman. I just hope it doesn't become too popular, as then the UDRP panel might not be amused the nth time they encounter that verbatim text.

 

[LatinPride]

Briman,

I like the text you have there as well.

I must admit after reading some of the key factors in the decision of this case, it has made me want to not lag so much to develop my sites.

I've worked the long hard hours and will do it again to atleast keep some of the more valuable domains I do have.

We should all come together and begin a development initiative. What is really stopping most of you from developing your sites? Cost of development for design/programming?

 

[DNQuest.com]

"This is a situation in which I have registered a domain name made up of a generic combination of characters because I, in good faith, believe that the domain name’s value derives entirely from its generic qualities and not because it is associated with another party's trademark. The landscape of the current domain name market supports my belief. I have a legitimate interest in the name because I registered it with this in mind and furthermore am holding the name as an investment and in hopes of someday developing it. I have several hundred domains which are in line for development (including this is one) but I am only one man with limited funds for such endeavors, therefore placement of this domain for sale in various forum, auction, parking and/or broker sites is not a sign of bad faith in my usage of the name, but only as a source of alternate revenue for website development."

I see where you are going with this and I understand what you are trying to present, but if you sent this to me, this is how I would break it down...

You are acknowledging a TM of the LLL.
Though you state you have an interest in the domain, you then turnaround and say it is an investment and trying to sell it and/or use ad placement. You have no legitamate usage of the site. Rulings have stated this is not legitimate interest.
You acknowledge making money from a domain which you already acknowledge could be a TM. this is bad faith.
You admit to domain pooling and that you are well versed in the domain game. This shows me that what you sent me is just a bunch of BS and you are just trying to outsmart the TM holder.
You state you have no money, so I could easily bully you (even if I am wrong and trying to overreach).

As I stated many many times, just address the issues in a C+D and never admit to a possible TM, and never offer additional information. As far as stating LLL are generic combinations, AOL, IBM, KIA... these are not generic
combinations.

So to summerize, can the complaintant show rights tot he domain? probably
can the complainant show you have no legitamate interest in the domain? probably
Can the complainant show it is registered and being used in bad faith? probably

Labrocca said it best... usage, usage, usage

 

[briman1970]

Points taken fellas... thanks for all your comments!