Company forced to give up domain QE2.com

[comicbookguy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/31/internet.qe2.reut/index.html

essenyially I you have no business need for the name they can take it from you??

Carnival, the world's largest cruise operator, on Tuesday won exclusive rights to "qe2.com" after the firm that registered the Internet site was found to have no link to its most famous ocean liner.
Prime Choice, a web design and site hosting company based in the U.S. state of Virginia, did not contest the complaint filed against it at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency in Geneva.
A WIPO panel agreed with Carnival's claim that Prime Choice "lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name" which it registered in August 2000 but did not develop.

 

[scopeweb]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/31/internet.qe2.reut/index.html

essenyially I you have no business need for the name they can take it from you??

Carnival, the world's largest cruise operator, on Tuesday won exclusive rights to "qe2.com" after the firm that registered the Internet site was found to have no link to its most famous ocean liner.
Prime Choice, a web design and site hosting company based in the U.S. state of Virginia, did not contest the complaint filed against it at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency in Geneva.
A WIPO panel agreed with Carnival's claim that Prime Choice "lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name" which it registered in August 2000 but did not develop.

They should of contested it!

 

[comicbookguy]

I know there was a trademark issue here but the wording is that Prime "did not have a legitimate business use" .that means if you have internettelephone.com and vonage wants it , they can take it?? am I reading that right and if I am wow. that means a lot to this industry.

 

[NeeJam]

The QE2 has been around much longer then since that person registered it although its now being converted into a hotel in Dubai (see source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6762901.stm) so he should of contested becuase i only think they own the trademark for Queen Elizabeth 2

 

[DNQuest.com]

I know there was a trademark issue here but the wording is that Prime "did not have a legitimate business use" .that means if you have internettelephone.com and vonage wants it , they can take it?? am I reading that right and if I am wow. that means a lot to this industry.

Does Vanage have a TM for internettelephone?

Though I think it is an overreach of the TM QE2, the respondant didn't... well... respond. Yes, usage does play an important part of UDRPs. If you do not build up interest in a domain name, that can work against you. But it is not the only factor to concider. The panel did as they are to do, and since there was no defense, that is how it was ruled.

 

[Mike]

Yet another gentle reminder that developing is key. Check on existing TMs, if you're expecting a possible problem, develop in the 180 degrees in the other direction, and not even that might save you... :td:

 

[DoctorZarkov]

The WIPO case text

If a UDRP case is brought against you and you don't respond, you automatically lose, plain and simple. There's no cost to respond so if a domain holder thinks they have a legitimate claim per the UDRP, they should respond. I think Carnival would have won regardless. Should not necessarily = would.

It took a bit of work, but I found the WIPO decision for the qe2.com case. Happy reading!

 

[DNQuest.com]

If a UDRP case is brought against you and you don't respond, you automatically lose, plain and simple.

Actually, that is a false statement... it should say .... you probably will lose, plain and simple. There have been cases where an unresponded UDRP was won by the respondent (even though they did not respond). It was because the complainant could not establish the 3 criteria of a UDRP.

 

[DoctorZarkov]

DNQuest.com, good point. There probably have been some rare cases. It would be awesome if someone could dig up such a case for future reference. If I was a respondent (and I have been) I wouldn't take the chance though!

A year or so ago I read a study that said that 90% of decisions are in favor of the complainant. I can't find the reference, but here are some stats. It also appears that in some cases panelists will decide who they want to find in favor for, then craft their responses to take advantage of the vagueness of the 3 UDRP criteria.

 

[bobbie]

They should have contested it.

 

[Makis.TV]

its a bit off topic but;
where can i see tm's for websites?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

but here are some stats.

10 May 2004

I think these have been updated, but they haven't changed the date...

Bah.

-Allan