adraianaventis.com UDRP

[Dave_Z]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0977.html

It's been quite some time since I saw a UDRP where the respondent won even
though s/he didn't reply to the challenge.

Fortunately for the respondent, the panelist took time to research extensively
and found quite a few interesting things:

It follows that a finding in favour of the Complainants in connection with the tests of paragraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii), is likely to result in a finding that the domain name at issue was registered in bad faith, and the Panel so finds.

The test of paragraph 4(a)(iii) is a dual one, and the Panel must also be satisfied that the domain name at issue has been used in bad faith.

The Panel accessed the domain name at issue, and found that the web site was billed as the “Official website of Adraiana Ventis”, “Adraiana Ventis – Pornstar Extraordinaire”, described as “a former teen webcam model from Tampa”.

The website contains several endorsements: “Congratulations to Adraiana Ventis for winning the AVN Best Newbie and critics’ award”, “Adraiana also won the CAVR Star of the Year Award.”

There is a website, “www.avnawards.com,” which refers to the “AVN Awards for excellence in adult movies”. There is a website, “www.cavr.com” (cavr apparently being the initials of “Cyberspace Adult Video Reviews”), which appears to be a comprehensive porn website.

Browsing the name Adraiana Ventis or adrianaventis on a browser such as Google results in many websites relating to the pornographic content promised in the “www.adraianaventis.com” website.

It is the Panel’s conclusion that the domain name at issue is used for the purposes of a working pornographic website, as opposed to a website prepared for the purposes of these proceedings.

Given the name and reputation of Adraiana Ventis, the domain name, in all probability was not registered to take advantage of any confusion with Complainants’ marks. Therefore, the domain name was not registered or used in bad faith.

In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Complainants are not likely to have their name/trade mark tarnished by such use, and, accordingly, decides that the domain name at issue is not being used in bad faith.

The Panel notes, in particular, that the Complainants have not complained of any approach by the owners of the domain name to them with a view to selling them the domain name.

I didn't know there was a group dedicated to "excellence in adult movies". But
I guess it shouldn't be surprising. :D

 

[Jeff]

Thanks for sharing, Dave ... interesting stuff! :gl: :tu:
:wave:

 

[mastodont]

It will help us to avoid many mistakes!

 

[RJ]

Thanks for posting this one.

First, that was a weak trademark claim. The company "Aventis" was filing a claim against "Adraiana Ventis" because the domain inadvertently contains the term within it (www.adrianaventis.com) Awful!

Second, it never surprises me how people fail to respond to their UDRP cases. It's not that hard to do! Luckily in this case, the judge didn't just award the domain to the complainant.