Domainer loses BME.com

[Embrand]

WIPO has ruled against a domainer, who has to hand over BME.com to some tattoo thing called BMEzine.com...

Not sure if this is a fair decision or not.

Read more here:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0882.html

 

[gjvblack]

Sad to see a good domain was stolen or mishandled.

 

[BinderGang]

Not good. I expect this case to be disputed.

BME can stand for many things.

 

[ac1d1dty]

Thats is obscenely unfair. How can someone trademark 3 letters to such an extent that they can just take 3 letter domains....

 

[maxeaus]

Whilst i in no way like the ruling, the vibe i am getting is that the lll.com
owner knew of the impending issue/s of using the domain for promoting tatoos, and willfully tried to hide his ownership of the domain, several times, whilst targetting tattoos on the website/lll.com against the other aggrieved party.

It would appear that the lll.com owner had previously fended off other reverse highjacking attempts against other domains he owned. I personally think he pushed the envelope too far with this one. This is my personal opinion only.

 

[jberryhill]

How can someone trademark 3 letters to such an extent that they can just take 3 letter domains....

The simple answer is that it's not that simple, for example:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1212590.htm

Furthermore, the disputed domain name is comprised of a generic acronym, consisting only of three letters, which in theory may stand for several different things, with the addition of a gTLD. As evidence for its assertion, Respondent includes a listing of several examples in which the letters “DNN” are being used on a non-infringing basis. See Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA 96364 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2001) (finding that the respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where the respondent has persuasively shown that the domain name is comprised of generic and/or descriptive terms and is not exclusively associated with the complainant's business).


Each of these disputes is decided on its own facts. The problem in this instance is that UDRP panels have adopted a very narrow view of domain ownership. If a business is a sole proprietorship, changes its legal form of organization, and then updates the WHOIS data to reflect that fact, a UDRP panel will consider the domain name to have been newly registered by a different entity, even if the equitable owner remains the same.

 

[Embrand]

It would be interesting to know how much the company had offered the domainer for BME.com in the first place. I could not find that figure in the ruling.

 

[Kate]

Another reason to be careful about the ads that are served when parking domains...

 

[PowerUp]

Another reason to be careful about the ads that are served when parking domains...

I have a theoretical question completely unrelated to this case. Is it possible to target the ad to appear on the lll.com? For example, I am selling shoes, and my brand/company is "sfk shoes marketing". sfk.com has a 1 page article about making money and displays ads not related to shoes but display ads based on his chosen keyword of "earn money". I then goto google adwords and create a targeted ad for "earn money" and specifically target the ad to appear on sfk.com. Will this help me in my case if I want him to hand the domain to me?

 

[TLDnetworks]

This reoccuring theme is troublesome...

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to this domain name. Respondent’s website is not being used for any legitimate purpose.

 

[Meongtae]

I use a domain attourney for really sticky, valuable names, and I have retained them thus far. The general advice is to have a site up and running with something that relates to the name, but nothing to do with any known trademark.
If there was a site up that was Big Monstrous Events, and it was actively managed as such, they would have a hard task proving the three points WIPO needs to see to turn over a domain.
But I'm NOT an attourny, I cant even spell, and legal issues are definetly left to the pros.

 

[Jasonn]

This reoccuring theme is troublesome...

Wow, I can't believe people lose domains simply for that. Next you'll be seeing respondants website is poorly designed, complaintant deserves it more.. total crap.

 

[homebuyer]

Cost of Winning

How much is the domain worth? How important is it to the registrant to keep the domain? At what point would it no longer be cost-effective to keep fighting here?

 

[Kate]

Here is the interesting bit:

From the date the Complaint was filed through the Panel’s accessing it, the disputed domain name resolved to a website with a photograph of a person drawing a tattoo and a number of click-through links to sites involving tattoo equipment, tattoo pictures, body piercing, body modification, and henna tattoos, and direct links to purchase tattoo kits. At the bottom of this page, in less prominent type than the body modification-related material above, are click-through links to topics unrelated to body modification that are similar to those found on many pay-per-click websites.

 

[Pound]

A shame to lose this when this, arguably much more legitimate, was won by the same man earlier.

 

[Dave_Z]

Here is the interesting bit:

From the date the Complaint was filed through the Panel’s accessing it, the disputed domain name resolved to a website with a photograph of a person drawing a tattoo and a number of click-through links to sites involving tattoo equipment, tattoo pictures, body piercing, body modification, and henna tattoos, and direct links to purchase tattoo kits. At the bottom of this page, in less prominent type than the body modification-related material above, are click-through links to topics unrelated to body modification that are similar to those found on many pay-per-click websites.

That practically nailed it against Greg.

Suit forthcoming, John?

 

[Dave_Z]

If John thinks he can appeal this and win he may just walk out the courtroom and part the red sea for fun.

Indeed. But that'll pretty much depend on Greg's final decision if he tells John
to part the red sea. :D

 

[Ronald Regging]

I have a theoretical question completely unrelated to this case. Is it possible to target the ad to appear on the lll.com? For example, I am selling shoes, and my brand/company is "sfk shoes marketing". sfk.com has a 1 page article about making money and displays ads not related to shoes but display ads based on his chosen keyword of "earn money". I then goto google adwords and create a targeted ad for "earn money" and specifically target the ad to appear on sfk.com. Will this help me in my case if I want him to hand the domain to me?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you said it's a theoretical question, but still, someone should slap you for even having that thought... :hehe:

But I don't know... I would imagine that the panelists would look at the general type of ads being served and be able to tell that something is fishy... Given the way that parking and keywords work, theres no logical reason that an ad for shoes would appear on a page that is using the "earn money" keyword unless there was some underhanded crap going on from the TM holder. I don't think panelists would be that naive, but you never know.

 

[jberryhill]

I have a theoretical question completely unrelated to this case. Is it possible to target the ad to appear on the lll.com? For example, I am selling shoes, and my brand/company is "sfk shoes marketing". sfk.com has a 1 page article about making money and displays ads not related to shoes but display ads based on his chosen keyword of "earn money". I then goto google adwords and create a targeted ad for "earn money" and specifically target the ad to appear on sfk.com. Will this help me in my case if I want him to hand the domain to me?

Artificially making your products appear on the page and then claiming infringement is a pretty transparent tactic, which has been tried before:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/843597.htm


Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have its advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word “pig.” Complainant caused the display of its own ad on the Respondent’s website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent.

 

[Pound]

Artificially making your products appear on the page and then claiming infringement is a pretty transparent tactic, which has been tried before:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/843597.htm


Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have its advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word “pig.” Complainant caused the display of its own ad on the Respondent’s website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent.

Nice work!