Camilla.com SCANDAL! - UDRP

[Josh R]

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/0...aka-mrs-jello-loses-a-horrible-udrp-decision/

Something needs to be done!

How can we help change this corrupt system?

 

[Keith]

If I read that right, the owner had links to the TM holders products. That's bad faith...

 

[Compassion]

If I read that right, the owner had links to the TM holders products. That's bad faith...

It was inadvertent, and remember these are the heirs to Igals (Mrs. Jello) portfolio. The reality is they are likely still figuring out how this all works and their situation is a clear indicator that we must all protect our families from losing domain portfolios and mishandlings such as having a parked page up on a domain like this.

I sold Igal DomainDictionary.com for $5k and sadly, it was one of the domains lost when he passed.

(Checking status)

Well, BuyDomains scooped up DomainDictionary and it looks like you can buy it for less than half of what Igal paid.

 

[RWD]

Unreal, did somebody pay somebody off here?

 

[Keith]

It was inadvertent, and remember these are the heirs to Igals (Mrs. Jello) portfolio. The reality is they are likely still figuring out how this all works and their situation is a clear indicator that we must all protect our families from losing domain portfolios and mishandlings such as having a parked page up on a domain like this.

Ignorance of the law doesn't protect you when you break it. In this case they broke the law and paid the price. Hopefully it's a lesson learned!

 

[RWD]

If I read that right, the owner had links to the TM holders products. That's bad faith...

Oh okay, that could be the game changer. I did not see that in detail first time I read it.

 

[Compassion]

Ignorance of the law doesn't protect you when you break it. In this case they broke the law and paid the price. Hopefully it's a lesson learned!

Wow you side with panelists?



Great beach shot in your profile, but the chemtrails in the upper right are nasty

I suppose it is somewhat inevitable that most outdoor photos these days show an artificially made sky.

 

[Compassion]

Technically we are all using unconstitutional funny money, so I guess everyone who passes privately owned Federal Reserve notes around is breaking the law!?!

 

[Keith]

Wow you side with panelists?



Great beach shot in your profile, but the chemtrails in the upper right are nasty

I suppose it is somewhat inevitable that most outdoor photos these days show an artificially made sky.

You have to agree with this decision. I can't steal a car, get caught, and then say "you can't punish me, I didn't know better."

That beach shot was taken this summer at one of the Great Lakes. Beautiful place!

 

[disaac81]

Who is to say how a domain name should be bought as intended...

Intended by whom?

What a joke. Better not buy antiques anymore as my intention is they may increase in value..or buy a house, or buy food, because food might go up in value too.. wait, water prices are increasing so I better not buy that either and use it for it's intended purpose....

Oh sorry....

--------------
There does seem to be more to the case, I did not know before, such as pointed out here. If links were going to the registered trademark owners products then I can see a valid reason.
Without those links though, I would guess the UDRP would have failed.

 

[Keith]

The quote below from the panel is the key to this decision.

"The fact that the Respondent has taken no efforts, once the Complainant put it on notice of its trademark rights, to remove the links to the complainant's products, is probative that at the time of registration the Respondent was prepared to disregard any rights that might develop from the successful use of the word “camilla” by any business, such as in fact occurred with the Complainant…"

 

[Dominium]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1593

identical or confusingly similar
"...the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant's CAMILLA trademark."

rights or legitimate interests
"The PPC links of the Respondent do not provide any basis in themselves for rights or legitimate interests, and in any event would be excluded in this case on the grounds that the PPC links lead to the Complainant's products (as discussed below) and therefore do not constitute a bona fide use."

registered or used in bad faith
"Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark"

WIPO's decision seems fair enough. Profiting from someone else's trademark. What's the problem?

 

[pmax]

If the respondent really did nothing wrong, he should now take legal action against the panelist. This will act as a warning to panelist in future not to fool around with the assets of investors.

 

[loredan]

The PPC links are so easy to game. If for instance you own John.com, keep it parked and have whatever links you have on your page, JohnWest Foods can anytime optimize their campaign so their links appear on your page. Then take a screenshot and there you have a winning UDRP.

On the other hand yourself as the owner of the domain name, have no control over the links placed on the parked page and cannot turn them on and off as you like as they're served in most cases by some third party ad provider.

 

[newshunter]

best to to held it up against existing written udrp rules

 

[loredan]

Things are just about to get messy...

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/11/ica-camilla-com/

 

[Dominium]

I don't understand what the outcry is all about. It seems simple to me. Do not profit from someone else's trademark.

The previous owner of camilla.com quite simply could have refrained from linking to, and profiting from, the trademark holder's products. Mrs Jello's gripe should be with the ad provider not with WIPO or the complainant.

 

[DomainVP]

If you value your domains, make sure you aren't linking to trademarked products.

So many UDRP's have been lost due to this, and it's an extremely basic principle.

Anyone reading this thread should be aware of UDRP policy, and prepare themselves accordingly.

 

[Kate]

I've read the decision, and I believe it is line and consistent with usual UDRP policy.

The sponsored links, as always
Avoid parking unless your domains are completely generic. Especially if you are earning peanuts on parking, don't jeopardize your domains for peanuts.

Nat Cohen has this to say:

Instead, the panelists created new and unprecedented duties for registrants, proclaiming that a “registrant of domain names that adopts a PPC revenue model must ensure that after registration the disputed domain name is not used in a deceptive or confusing manner with new or developing trademarks” and a “registrant of domain names from the moment of acquisition must be prepared to take necessary steps to ensure that the PPC links generated by algorithm do not infringe existing trademarks, or any trademarks that may emerge in future”. (Emphasis added.) The panel’s decision would place a burden on domain registrants of generic words to monitor ongoing trademark registrations in every nation in the world. It would also require them to influence the proprietary ad placement algorithms of Yahoo!, Google, and other major online ad providers. Both of these new responsibilities are nowhere to be found in the UDRP rules and are impossible to meet.

(overemphasis is mine)
I think this is it. Domain holders have to monitor their domains. The domains may not infringe today (or at the time of acquisition), but problems could occur later.
Parking is not considered active usage, and does not accrue any TM rights. Thus, holder of parked (undeveloped) domains have a greater duty to avoid possible TM infringements.

Moreover, the complainant mentioned at least one case that MrsJello lost in very similar circumstances. Panel thinking here: respondent should know better, besides he now has a record of bad faith in the past. This is not going to help. Bad history will be used against you.

Finally, while it's not been expressed openly, I think a lot of outrage from the community comes from the fact that MRSJ passed away, and his heirs are supposedly still reeling from his disappearance, and possibly they are not on top of things. I don't know about the heirs, perhaps they inherited a domain portfolio while they are not domainers, or knowledgeable about this kind of stuff. The portfolio may be on autopilot.

 

[DomainVP]

Finally, while it's not been expressed openly, I think a lot of outrage from the community comes from the fact that MRSJ passed away, and his heirs are supposedly still reeling from his disappearance, and possibly they are not on top of things. I don't know about the heirs, perhaps they inherited a domain portfolio while they are not domainers, or knowledgeable about this kind of stuff. The portfolio may be on autopilot.

This is a hard one to read indeed...

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/06/16/mrs-jello-loses-udrp-on-milly-com/

Some outreach should be done to the Lichtman family to get this all straightened out.

I imagine it's hard to trust anyone managing assets, but it's got to be harder losing them.

The complainants are using the policies to their advantage, and rightfully so... but there is a bit of shame that needs to be dealt out to the complainants for capitalizing on the death of a man.

Are there no friends here of the family that can help with this?