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/

 

[jberryhill]

Those two logos look nothing like each other, and there is apparently nothing in the history of the Respondent's use of the domain name which has had anything to do with a bus service in Mexico.

If the Panel's point is that there was some sort of "consumer confusion" then what, exactly, were these consumers supposed to be confused about? That they were looking for a bus route from Mexico City to Veracruz, and instead ended up buying a domain name?

What nonsense.

 

[Mahouni]

Show attachment 79927

Even if not clear-cut, that thing with some pictures of buses and transportation is a basis for a case where you lose 500k.

 

[Asfas1000]

and there is apparently nothing in the history of the Respondent's use of the domain name which has had anything to do with a bus service in Mexico.

Look at this John

https://web.archive.org/web/20111228140953/http://ado.com:80/

 

[jberryhill]

Look at this John

https://web.archive.org/web/20111228140953/http://ado.com:80/

I'll say it again, so you can pick upon the meaning:

"there is apparently nothing in the history of the Respondent's use of the domain name which has had anything to do with a bus service in Mexico."

You provided a link to a page from 2011, when the domain name was NOT REGISTERED TO THE CURRENT REGISTRANT.

That was even addressed in the decision:

"Respondent states that it was in this context that he negotiated for the purchase of the Domain Name during the period May 26, 2012 until June 19, 2012, over five years ago. Commencing on May 26, 2012, Respondent contacted the former owner to purchase the Domain Name."

So, Asfas100, could you explain what a 2011 archive page has to do with the Respondent's registration and use of the domain name since 2012?

 

[Asfas1000]

Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had mistakenly assumed it was the same owner.

 

[wwwweb]

Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had mistakenly assumed it was the same owner.

I was always under the assumption if the past owner had violated such terms also, it could always come back to haunt you, such that is being shown in this case, I didn't think there is any golden rule. Good thread to learn from. Thank You

 

[jberryhill]

Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had mistakenly assumed it was the same owner.

No worries. It's always important to keep track of hidden assumptions.

 

[NoBS]

Disgusting decision what a joke. Sue the company and the panelists for everything they have, put them out of business and out of work. They are the real criminals, effectively robbing the registrant of their valuable property.

 

[betthelot]

Here is my take on it

http://domainingtips.com/much-ado-emotions-ado-com-lost.html

 

[Kate]

The logos are one stupid mistake, but I would think that it is simply the logo designer who is oblivious to TM and copyright issues. Unless François did design the logos himself ?
Nonetheless the complainant clearly documented their case a lot to support an otherwise flimsy complaint imho.
I would expect François to escalate to court.

 

[elevator]

The logos are one stupid mistake, but I would think that it is simply the logo designer who is oblivious to TM and copyright issues. Unless François did design the logos himself ?
Nonetheless the complainant clearly documented their case a lot to support an otherwise flimsy complaint imho.
I would expect François to escalate to court.

What happened with the logo, from my own end here they are not looking alike or are you talking about the color? which shouldn't be any problem or do trademark affect colors too?

Their complaint are about the price which does not make anything close to sense at all IMHO.

Any way I know Francois will not just quiet like that he must come up with defense.

 

[Shailendra Mishra]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1661

The respondent's part was not considered to its full effect by the panel?

 

[BrandMart]

Looks like the panel members got good money under the table for this statement.

What the world is coming to.. Nive.com and Nike logo looks similar? Are they blind or can’t see on purpose? Maybe they are famous for blindly driving their buses in Mexico and now are proving their blindness againt Francois.. poor him..

Clearly, Domaining is getting infested with law driven sharks and leeches.

 

[-AR-]

This is pure fraud, decisions like this harm the domaining community as a whole because it scares investors away from putting money in domains. The reasoning behind the decision does not make sense at all, either this panel was made up of very inexperienced people who do not know a thing about domains or money must have changed hands behind the scenes. Which one is it?

It must not feel great to be the domain owner at the moment but I hope he does fight this case. This is what they call legal theft I guess.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

Those two logos look nothing like each other, and there is apparently nothing in the history of the Respondent's use of the domain name which has had anything to do with a bus service in Mexico.

If the Panel's point is that there was some sort of "consumer confusion" then what, exactly, were these consumers supposed to be confused about? That they were looking for a bus route from Mexico City to Veracruz, and instead ended up buying a domain name?

What nonsense.

Will you be helping him in his lawsuit?

 

[alcy]

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.

if someone makes you an offer first then that also could be a way to get you to counter thus proving its for sale and you are actively selling.

also, while I agree with you on parking pages, its still too bad, as valuable domains normally and often also involve nice revenue from parked pages... imo

 

[Mr. Deleted]

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.

He did not know that brand existed, so how could that even be true? He knew 2 things, it is a French word (where he is from) and an English word.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

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.

That is true, but without a suit, you do lose the name. And what makes this worse is that there was a 3 member panel, and not one of them said, hey, wait a minute, this is not right.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

Show attachment 79927

That is a different color altogether.

 

[SuperBrander]

@Mr. Deleted They do also use a red logo though. Check out the images when you search on Google.

 

[DomainVP]

if someone makes you an offer first then that also could be a way to get you to counter thus proving its for sale and you are actively selling.

Or just be extremely cautious not to suggest any price to a TM holder that supersedes your domain acquisition.

Yes, as stated; if someone makes you an offer first be extremely cautious not to suggest any price to a TM holder that supersedes your domain acquisition.

If someone makes you an offer first and they wouldn't be able to prove a TM in any way shape or form I would be comfortable with a well worded counter offer.

 

[Asfas1000]

Yes, as stated; if someone makes you an offer first be extremely cautious not to suggest any price to a TM holder that supersedes your domain acquisition.

If someone makes you an offer first and they wouldn't be able to prove a TM in any way shape or form I would be comfortable with a well worded counter offer.

I was under the impression that, if someone makes you an offer, they are accepting you have rights to the domain ?

 

[DomainVP]

I was under the impression that, if someone makes you an offer, they are accepting you have rights to the domain ?

Surprise, it's a trap!

If you demonstrate that you are willing to sell to a TM holder that has a TM that supersedes your ownership, even if they make the first offer, just build your domain a coffin because panelists love to use this a 'bad faith'.

Choose your words carefully during any inquiry.

 

[Kate]

I was under the impression that, if someone makes you an offer, they are accepting you have rights to the domain ?

Not necessarily. An UDRP is not cheap, so it makes sense for the TM holder to grant a token amount to the 'squatter' or reimburse registration fees, just to get rid of the offending domain.

I also assume that before an UDRP is launched, an effort is made to reach the domain holder and get him to hand over/delete the domain, and that the UDRP is the last resort for dealing with uncooperative registrants. Sometimes, a TM holder may file a UDRP without warning just to make an example out of somebody and establish a record of prior decisions. But as a rule you always want to avoid expensive litigation.

 

[alcy]

Surprise, it's a trap!

If you demonstrate that you are willing to sell to a TM holder that has a TM that supersedes your ownership, even if they make the first offer, just build your domain a coffin because panelists love to use this a 'bad faith'.

Choose your words carefully during any inquiry.

interesting
so I guess the idea that you could turn it around and accuse the person who tries to get your domain of baiting and trickery is out the window right?

well.. how about this then.. what if someone makes you on offer via a sale site.. like sedo.. godaddy auctions.. and there aren't really any words exchanged .. just numbers..

or having it listed on sedo is already proof enough yuo are trying to sell.. and they can use that against you without even making offers.