Disturbing; 12 Year Old Canary.com Lost in UDRP

[lennco]

Complainant Canary LLC just was awarded the domain name canary.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum Panel

Canary is in the dictionary and is a type of bird.

The decision was published in Chinese and translated into English by Google.

The decision in pretty disturbing because the panel incorrectly states as matter of law that the fact the domain was parked is equivalent to non-use of the domain and due to being parked/not used the domain holder has not legitimate rights to the domain.

Of course the domain holder didn’t do himself any favors by not going for the three member panel and quoting $7,000,000 for the domain.

Here are the facts and finding by the panel:

The complainant is a company registered in the United States . The complainant was registered in the U.S. have CANARY and THE CANARY trademark owners. As early as 1984 the complainant started using CANARY trademarks in the United States .

The complainant principally engaged in sales CANARY brand oilfield drilling services throughout the United States production of oil and gas companies . As early as 1984 the complainant began selling CANARY brand oilfield drilling production services.

Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never used disputed domain name.

Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ”

Now more than 10 years.

The respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests .

Respondent has registered more than 170 domain names.

All domain names are not used .

Respondent seems to be in a lot of fields out of business registration in order to sell them to someone else.

Disputed domain name has been registered and used maliciously .

The disputed domain name on the page that ” buy this domain “, when contact with the complainant , the complainant provided the disputed domain name was for sale for $ 7,000,000.00 .

In addition, the complainant registered more than 150 domain name registration to the fact that with someone else ‘s registered trademark as a domain name registration and domain currently use or lack of articulated plan , suggested that he maliciously registered domain name intends to sell the complainant or the complainant competitor which constitute bad faith registration and use.


Evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name intentionally rational use through the illusion of being concealed their trading sites sell the domain name in order to reap unfair commercial interests.

Meanwhile according to the relevant searches , the Respondent also registered by other similar domain names and websites for sale in this domain , such acts have been met “Policy” section 4 (a)) (i) under paragraph malicious domain name registration and use situation.

Given the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name in bad faith registration and use . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has completed its policy section 4 (a) of the third burden of proof.
http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/24/disturbing-12-year-old-canary-com-lost-in-udrp/?fb_source=pubv1

Scary stuff

 

[dnp1234]

What we need is a high profile lawyer to equate parking a domain to a legitimate use of a domain name. I know this is a stretch with the current understanding, but technically you could be using a parked domain to generate income from advertisements and that “could” be your business model. I don’t know if I would consider the previous owner asking for 7 million as shooting himself in the foot. To me it would depend on what kind of ads showed up on the domain and if they violated the company’s trademark. Seeing as Canary is a generic, dictionary word I don’t agree with some of the wording in the decision. I sure as hell do not agree with the part about the former owner having over 150 other domains.

Sure, some could look at it as he was just sitting on the name to sell to someone, but should that really be illegal? Let’s say I bought one of the very first stamps ever made many years ago and never used it because I like to collect things. Then one day someone else see’s my prized collection and says they want it. I tell them that it would take X amount of money to get me to let my prized collectible go and then they try to take it from me by legal means just because they didn’t want to pay. Does that make it right? Should me owning 100 other stamps I have not used be a negative factor in the legal decision as well? That does not make it right and it shouldn’t be wrong for me to require whatever amount of money I want to release/exchange my property/investment to someone else. It should only matter if the usage was infringing on the complainant’s trademark.

I don’t like to park domains myself, but it should not be illegal for me to invest in undeveloped property that I plan to develop in the future when funds and time allow. At the rate things are going even having a one page site to hedge yourself against these kind of attacks will do you no good.

 

[Dave_Z]

What we need is a high profile lawyer to equate parking a domain to a legitimate use of a domain name. I know this is a stretch with the current understanding, but technically you could be using a parked domain to generate income from advertisements and that “could” be your business model. I don’t know if I would consider the previous owner asking for 7 million as shooting himself in the foot. To me it would depend on what kind of ads showed up on the domain and if they violated the company’s trademark. Seeing as Canary is a generic, dictionary word I don’t agree with some of the wording in the decision. I sure as hell do not agree with the part about the former owner having over 150 other domains.

Sure, some could look at it as he was just sitting on the name to sell to someone, but should that really be illegal? Let’s say I bought one of the very first stamps ever made many years ago and never used it because I like to collect things. Then one day someone else see’s views my prized collection and says they want it. I tell them that it would take X amount of money to get me to let my prize collectible go and then they try to take it from me by legal means just because they didn’t want to pay, does that make it right? Should me owning 100 other stamps I have no used be negative factor in the legal decision as well? That does not make it right and it shouldn’t be wrong for me to require whatever amount of money I want to release/exchange my property/investment to someone else. It should only matter if the usage was infringing on the complainant’s trademark.

I don’t like to park domains myself, but it should not be illegal for me to invest in undeveloped property that I plan to develop in the future when funds and time allow. At the rate things are going even having a one page site to hedge yourself against these kind of attacks will do you no good.

Just to give you an idea:

http://www.namepros.com/domain-name...iner-loses-veko-com-udrp-one.html#post4498515

 

[tonyk2000]

As for expensive lawyers to defend our domains... I was able to successfully defend some of my domains in UDRPs myself. "There is nothing New Under the Moon". Often there are similar cases represented by TOP lawyers like John Berryhill and all decisions are published. Just some "homework" - and you're done...
Two tips:

1) A positive thing happens if you're able to prove that the Complainant somehow lied or elected to have some related facts hidden. This happens, and happens too often... See Sven Beichler v. chocri GmbH (WIPO case D2011-1629) - "deliberately omitting essential facts from the Complaint does not help the case of a Complainant, since it raises the suspicion that the Complainant is trying to “cover up” facts which are unfavorable to its case. Such behavior may in itself be sufficient for a panel to deny the Complaint."

2) If you are using domain parking, just go and manually check one-by-one your top 25 earners. If you analyze what ads and what related keywords are shown, in many cases you will find that the earnings (even for a domain you considered generic or brandable) are generated by ads related to some trademarks. Like if you own "blue-sky dot something" (made-up example) and expected to see lets say airline tickets ads, in fact you will find that there is some real estate - related "blue sky limited" company and all the ads provided by G are about real estate. Earlier or later, you'll probably receive UDRP then

 

[Kate]

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/2...today-rightofthedot-com-is-a-founding-member/

 

[alien51]

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/2...today-rightofthedot-com-is-a-founding-member/

I think this Domain Name Association (DNA), mentioned in that link article is more of a marketing ploy for domainers. And there is a conflict of interest.

It says “The association will promote the interests of the domain name industry by advocating the use, adoption, and expansion of domain names as the primary tool for users to navigate the Internet.”

This advocacy is only fit for END-USERS. Not Domainers.

What the DNA is saying, is that they want to encourage more people to use Domain Names to build enriching websites for the benefit of mankind.

So after End-Users got encouraged, they now start looking for Domain Names to use...... and behold...... almost all domains are already taken...... by domainers.

This is like Budweiser encouraging people that beer is good for your health, and after getting people convinced of beer's health benefits, but of course they start selling Bud Light.

This is no different from Domainers trumpeting the benefits of launching new exotic domain extensions like .GREEN, simply because they will make money selling .GREEN domains.

What we need for a Domainer's "association", are:

1. Protection from domain bullying UDRPs, and highly questionable WIPO rulings;

2. Cleaning/policing up the domain auction processes held at various auction sites

3. Strengthening the Domain Escrow process protecting the domainer from fraud like chargebacks, non-paying buyers, etc.

4. Policing the shady tactics used by various Domain Registrars regarding renewal pricing, Domain locking out issues, ridiculous upselling tactics, drop-catching screw-ups, etc.

5. Setting up a SECURE platform for low-priced domains aftermarket.​

The Domaining Industry right now is a Wild, Wild, West where anything goes. I have yet to see an "association" that will try to clean it up. Most of these groups, only have a personal agenda, and that is - to make money. And this "advocacy (see above in blue fonts)", is just a smoke screen to hide that fact.

 

[dayhost]

WOW, I hope that never happens to me.