CVCV transfered WIPO

[gemstar]

Hold onto your CVCV's Companies finding it easier to use WIPO than purchasing domain as this was the case.
REPI.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0137

 

[DN BROKER]

www.repi.it uses corrupt method to reverse hijack repi.com

thats called reverse hijacking! how the heck did the panel decide that 4 letters violates the TM? who cares if the business is being around for 30 years. I keep saying it, dont park your domains!

 

[Sull]

This line is unsettling for sure:

"In addition, the Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name for the minimum price of EUR 10,000.00. It is well established that registering a domain name for the primary purpose of offering to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name for consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses is evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith."

 

[Kate]

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no apparent “business” other than to register, cybersquat and sell domain names. Although the disputed domain name has been registered since May 2, 2002 at the address “www.repi.com”, solely a page containing sponsored links is displayed. Moreover, the disputed domain name is linked with a domain name parking service to generate revenue. This is a common practice among cybersquatters, who have no intention of actually providing any real content or service, but who expect many misguided visitors precisely because of the confusing nature of the domain name.

I wonder what cybersquatting exactly means to the panelist.

 

[DN BROKER]

www.repi.it STEALS repi.com

very disturbing news

 

[Sull]

This line is unsettling for sure:

"In addition, the Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name for the minimum price of EUR 10,000.00. It is well established that registering a domain name for the primary purpose of offering to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name for consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses is evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith."

What's worse is that there are no clear cut guidelines for deciding these cases. Some panelists are ignorant like Thomas P. Pinansky in this case, and others clearly state in their decisions that the buying and selling of domain names does NOT constitute bad faith (rightly). It's basically who you get.

 

[DN BROKER]

www.repi.it reverse hijacks repi.com

this was nothing but a reverse hijack of a domain name, in other words REPI the italian company stole REPI.com

I would not trust their business.

 

[alien51]

Well, it is true. REPI the Italian company is a popular brand. If i type REPI on Google, the company's italian website ranks on top. There is no way to argue that you could not have known this brand has been existing.

Another is that REPI is not exactly generic, dictionary, or descriptive. The more unique it is, the more it reinforces your trademark claim to it. Which is a burden for acronym speculators, because it is difficult to claim legit interest on some jumbled letters other than squatting on it when someone already has trademark claims to it.

I think the wordings of this panelist was less than perfect. He must have been referring to regging "trademarked" domains. Otherwise, SEDO could not have existed if people are not allowed to reg domains for the purpose of reselling them.

And lastly, the domain owner in this specific REPI case did not offer any defense. And his position was not exactly strong to begin with to not offer any kind of defense to rebutt the complaint against him.

A panelist is a human being, and you need to convince his mind to reverse an existing presumption that is against you. And the contention was, he regged the domain in bad faith based on the argued evidence presented.

By the way, i am just commenting for the sake of discussion. This is not a legal advice.

Just out of curiosity: This is an old case, dating back to March 2011. What prompted you to dig this up?

 

[FX]

I feel sorry for the owner

 

[Name Trader]

Jeez. It remains unsaid, but I think the parking didn't show any infringement of the PEPI's trademarks, else they would have pointed it out. Parking IS a legitimate business model. So is selling domains. This was daylight robbery, imho. But if the respondent had responded, he could have helped himself, a lot. I thought the complainants arguments were weak. Any Good domain lawyer could have won this case for the respondent. But again, that's the crap-shoot you get with a single panelist.

 

[DN BROKER]

Warning - www.REPI.it - READ THIS www.REPI.com

Jeez. It remains unsaid, but I think the parking didn't show any infringement of the PEPI's trademarks, else they would have pointed it out. Parking IS a legitimate business model. So is selling domains. This was daylight robbery, imho. But if the respondent had responded, he could have helped himself, a lot. I thought the complainants arguments were weak. Any Good domain lawyer could have won this case for the respondent. But again, that's the crap-shoot you get with a single panelist.

Indeed this was a corrupt plan initiated by the company www.REPI.it - I wonder if their IT department drafted the plan to use such a lame excuse to reverse hijack the .com. It's shameful and disturbing news for our community. I feel very awful for the owner and hope others learn from this mistake and realize that no company has the right to reverse hijack your name using such methods.

Fight for your rights people!

 

[gemstar]

Well, it is true. REPI the Italian company is a popular brand. If i type REPI on Google, the company's italian website ranks on top. There is no way to argue that you could not have known this brand has been existing.

Another is that REPI is not exactly generic, dictionary, or descriptive. The more unique it is, the more it reinforces your trademark claim to it. Which is a burden for acronym speculators, because it is difficult to claim legit interest on some jumbled letters other than squatting on it when someone already has trademark claims to it.

I think the wordings of this panelist was less than perfect. He must have been referring to regging "trademarked" domains. Otherwise, SEDO could not have existed if people are not allowed to reg domains for the purpose of reselling them.

And lastly, the domain owner in this specific REPI case did not offer any defense. And his position was not exactly strong to begin with to not offer any kind of defense to rebutt the complaint against him.

A panelist is a human being, and you need to convince his mind to reverse an existing presumption that is against you. And the contention was, he regged the domain in bad faith based on the argued evidence presented.

By the way, i am just commenting for the sake of discussion. This is not a legal advice.

Just out of curiosity: This is an old case, dating back to March 2011. What prompted you to dig this up?

I thought the importance of such names are being taken without merit and since no other post was made about it this would start some talk and make people more prepared for any further sneeks out there.:santa::wave:

 

[alien51]

I thought the importance of such names are being taken without merit and since no other post was made about it this would start some talk and make people more prepared for any further sneeks out there.:santa::wave:

It's an irony that we have a sticky thread here at the top entitled "Ten Commandments of Domaining", and the first commandment was about staying away from trademarked domains.

To be honest, i don't know why any internet user would search or type the word "REPI" on a browser, other than search for the legit REPI business owner. So why would anyone reg a domain that has no legitimate use other than divert traffic away from the trademark owner's website that has exactly the same name. Beats me.

 

[gemstar]

It's an irony that we have a sticky thread here at the top entitled "Ten Commandments of Domaining", and the first commandment was about staying away from trademarked domains.

To be honest, i don't know why any internet user would search or type the word "REPI" on a browser, other than search for the legit REPI business owner. So why would anyone reg a domain that has no legitimate use other than divert traffic away from the trademark owner's website that has exactly the same name. Beats me.

Well I guess some people thought that cvcv's were going to be a valuable property on the net not thinking about any user out there with any trade mark associated with the domain.
In any case, Just as mentioned before by another poster regarding internet properties.
If you own a real estate property on say Hollywood Blvd at a great intersection where traffic is heavy. Can a company take that property away because you decided to lease out your property to a bill board company promoting advertising to potential customers?
Can say hollywood123corp take your real estate
@ 123 Hollywood Blvd for squatting??
I don't think so.

New Google algorithm to kick parked domains out of index
http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/search-quality-highlights-new-monthly.html

 

[alien51]

If you own a real estate property on say hollywood Blvd at a great intersection where traffic is heavy. Can a company take that property away because you decided to lease out your property to a bill board company promoting advertising to potential customers?
Can say hollywood123corp take your real estate
@ 123 Hollywod Blvd for squatting??
I don't think so.

Unfortunately, domain names are not just properties. They can be used as "brands". And domain name disputes almost always revolve around incidents involving "brand confusion".

If REPI.com was a generic domain like "BOOKSTORE.com" or "ORANGEJUICE.com", there probably wouldn't be any problem.

 

[DU]

Unfortunately, domain names are not just properties.

I'm not sure we've agreed on this definition yet!

 

[alien51]

I'm not sure we've agreed on this definition yet!

Which means, we cannot use domain name ownership to be analogous to real estate ownership as well. Strictly, speaking.