information ADO.com Lost in UDRP Because Of Having A Domain Portfolio Page????

[Silentptnr]

Just read this. It's too bad. What a great domain.

"the Mexican company utilized the Respondent’s public domain portfolio of short domains, as featured at Catchy.com, to claim that it’s a “for profit” activity. Some of the logos on Catchy.com look like those of other marks, according to the Complainant."

I really don't like this decision. Am I wrong?

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/three-letter-com-domain-ado-com-lost-via-the-udrp-process/

 

[Asfas1000]

I just read about it on DNW : https://domainnamewire.com/2018/02/...omaining-com-owner-francois-carrillo-ado-com/

Lost because it was deemed too expensive at $500K ??? What ???

 

[Silentptnr]

Because he had a domain portfolio page with logos, etc?

 

[Asfas1000]

"Among the judgments the panel made is that $500,000 was too much to ask for the domain name because Carillo purchased it for $27,500. "

 

[Silentptnr]

"Among the judgments the panel made is that $500,000 was too much to ask for the domain name because Carillo purchased it for $27,500. "

Which is completely out of line in my opinion. Since when does a panel get to determine the value of a domain for sale registered in 1999? Makes no sense.

 

[alinask]

Complainant indicates that, as observed on the “Internet Archive: Wayback Machine” (“Archive.org”), until four years ago (April 2012), the Domain Name had content directly related to transportation services, namely, bus tickets and terminals in Mexico, displaying imagery (buses and roads) and hyperlinks related to these services.

Complainant submits that in August 2015, the webpage began displaying the brand ADO in red capital letters, thereby appealing to and taking advantage of the potential value that the Domain Name could represent to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant.

I believe these are serious threats to lose a WIPO..

 

[teper]

So the moral of the story is dont use logos, text or anything at all on these high value domains and dont park them also

 

[GeorgeK]

This decision was a joke. The panelists failed to understand that a 3-letter one-word dot-com could be worth more than a 4-letter non-word dot-com! They should be ashamed of themselves.

I hope Francois files a court case and wins a massive Reverse Domain Name Hijacking award, as Digimedia and others have done.

 

[Embrand]

This is shocking! I hope Francois takes this one to court. Who are they to decide the asking price for your domain?

 

[Silentptnr]

From what I read, this was a very bad decision. The evidence used by the complainant was not compelling at all in my opinion. Anyone knows the right domain name can have value far in excess of the price tag on this one. Really unfortunate. I hope he doesn't just hand it over.

 

[GeorgeK]

By the way, more domain name registrants should consider joining the ICANN working group that is reviewing the UDRP (dominated by TM lawyers now), see:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoworkgroupres/GNSO+Working+Group+Frequently+Asked+Questions

How do I join a Working Group (WG)?

Send an email to the GNSO Secretariat at [email protected] - specify if you want to join as a Member or as an Observer. As a Member, you will have full posting rights on the WG mailing list and will be able to participate on WG calls and at meetings. As an Observer, you will have read-only rights to the WG mailing list and will not be able to join or participate in WG calls or meetings. Members will have to fill in a Statement of Interest prior to joining the WG.

There's a conference call once a week for roughly 90 minutes, and there's also a mailing list to keep track of (maybe another hour per week, including preparation for the conference calls).

 

[Keith]

Looks like a great decision imo. Especially when they point out several logos of the defendant’s domains that mimic TM holders. The owner went out of his way to create images confusingly similar to well known brands, on confusingly similar domains!

Busted!!!

 

[Silentptnr]

Looks like a great decision imo. Especially when they point out several logos of the defendant’s domains that mimic TM holders. The owner went out of his way to create images confusingly similar to well known brands, on confusingly similar domains!

Busted!!!

But the complainant wouldn't have cared if the domain in question was some random, valueless domain. The UDRP panel failed, in my opinion, to consider the underlying motivation for the complaint.

When the asset in question has value upwards of half a million dollars, they must expect complainants to spend a measly $1500 bucks for a chance at a 500k name! Reverse Domain Hijacking is a sham. No bite.

I hope I'm wrong, but this seems a very bad decision, despite the respondent using logos that bring to mind a known product or service as an example to demonstrate the potential of a particular domain.

 

[Keith]

But the complainant wouldn't have cared if the domain in question was some random, valueless domain. The UDRP panel failed, in my opinion, to consider the underlying motivation for the complaint.

When the asset in question has value upwards of half a million dollars, they must expect complainants to spend a measly $1500 bucks for a chance at a 500k name! Reverse Domain Hijacking is a sham. No bite.

I hope I'm wrong, but this seems a very bad decision, despite the respondent using logos that bring to mind a known product or service as an example to demonstrate the potential of a particular domain.

They care because it’s their well known brand with a longstanding TM. The registrant didn’t create the red logo on accident, as he has several other logos that are identical to other, big brands.

 

[Mahouni]

Yeah if he was deliberately targeting this customer who owned the trademark and asked 500k it was not too far-fetched of a decision, but it sets a bad example for future cases...

 

[wwwweb]

Autobuses de Oriente, S.A. de C.V. (Autobuses of the East, Inc.; usually known as A.D.O.) is one of the most important Mexican bus companies, running first-class and executive-class buses. It was founded with six buses on December 23, 1939 on the route Mexico City-Puebla-Perote-Jalapa-Veracruz. Its first buses were BentleyContinentals. It was not an easy beginning. In 1939 there was relatively little demand for transport, the roads were dangerous, there were no terminals or repair shops. Each of the founding partners had to serve as driver, baggage handler, mechanic, administrator, etc.

Initially the company covered only the one route, but in the 1950s it added a route to Villahermosa. Other cities served today include Cancún, Oaxaca, Campeche, Cuautla, Huatulco, Mérida and Coatzacoalcos. In Mexico City A.D.O. serves the Terminal de Autobuses de Pasajeros de Oriente station.

ado.com.mx

By all intensive purposes was probably a great traffic domain, using that red, and white color maybe was not a good idea. Looks like he is going to have to spend some money taking this to a higher court of law to get his name back.

I don't think asking price warrants anything, that is how business works, start high, and try to meet in the middle, given the size, and depth of the company, seems like a good starting point.

Dangerous part is just the though of rolling the dice with a few K invested, and having a shot gave hope to many companies today, I would expect ADO management has to be on cloud 9 with this ruling.

 

[Embrand]

Looks like a great decision imo. Especially when they point out several logos of the defendant’s domains that mimic TM holders. The owner went out of his way to create images confusingly similar to well known brands, on confusingly similar domains!

Busted!!!

Admittedly, I have not had a look at the logos used at Catchy compared to various trademark holders' logos. If what you write is correct, then maybe the ruling is not so shocking after all.

It just seems strange that an industry veteran such as Francois would make such mistakes.

 

[abcproductions]

WIPO decisions are merely the views and recommendations from panelists who often get it wrong. WIPO decisions are not binding in a court of law so don’t give up Francois.

 

[Keith]

Admittedly, I have not had a look at the logos used at Catchy compared to various trademark holders' logos. If what you write is correct, then maybe the ruling is not so shocking after all.

It just seems strange that an industry veteran such as Francois would make such mistakes.

You be the judge...

 

[urlurl]

the nuta logo is way to obvious, com'on they should know better

 

[Mahouni]

Show attachment 79925
You be the judge...

If this is what he was doing he deserves to get bitten once.

 

[DomainVP]

It's pretty simple...

Don't allow your domain to display ANYTHING related to potential companies that have TM interests.

This happens over and over and then you get a group of domainers that cry foul over elements of the URDP that have almost nothing to do with the core reasoning behind the decision.

The "too much money" and "domain marketplace selle" elements of this decision are just icing on the cake, anyone familiar with URDP decisions knows this. On their own these elements would not have caused the panels decision to rip the domain from the respondent.

If you have a valuable domain:
#1) Don't use parking ads.
#2) Avoid ANY and ALL confusion when it comes to any existing rights. (Use TESS)
#3) Let everyone else make offers before you start broadcasting your 'price' to anyone. Or just be extremely cautious not to suggest any price to a TM holder that supersedes your domain acquisition.

 

[wwwweb]

If this is what he was doing he deserves to get bitten once.

Well it's the same 3 letters, for obvious reasons, colors were same, red, and white, but fonts are different.

He maybe should have added .com to the end of the logo

 

[Embrand]

Show attachment 79925
You be the judge...

Thanks. That does look disturbing.

 

[wwwweb]