Domainer loses Veko.com in UDRP-one member panel

[NPer]

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/05/2...omain-was-parked-for-sale-owner-was-domainer/

Veko Lightsystems International B.V. was awarded the domain name Veko.com by a one member UDRP panel

The Complainant won the case based off of a Benelux trademark issued February 20, 2002.

A Benelux trademark is about the easiest trademarks to get an usually a jurisdiction someone runs to if they have a weak claim for the trademark especially if they need one in a hurry.

The panel put a lot of weight in its decision on the fact that the domain went to a page of was offered for sale on domainnamesales.com for $25,000 on, the owner of the domain was a domainer and owned over 1,450 domain names and “has a prior history in registering domain names corresponding to the trademarks of others.”

So being a domainer is a bad thing?

 

[Arief WN]

Nope. But being a trademark infringer is a bad thing. :gl:

So being a domainer is a bad thing?

 

[lincolndsp]

it's a CVCV. decision was stupid, domaining can be dangerous because of bullies.

 

[alien51]

If you read the full UDRP ruling, looks like the Korean dude is in deep mudpit from the beginning:

"....Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name, giving rise to registration of the domain name in bad faith."

"....Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the VEKO mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent engaged in when using it, including linking it to a website promoting lighting products, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith"

 

[freedom30]

it's a CVCV. decision was stupid, domaining can be dangerous because of bullies.

...just solidifies my conviction that some of the judges that comprise the UDRP panels are as corrupt as some of the politicians that govern the countries of this planet, that's all...

 

[Kate]

It's a normal and expected ruling, given that the respondent:

• didn't respond
• has a history of TM infringement

among other reasons

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

On the surface, a terrible decision, but like sdsinc said, this guy had a history of TM infringing.

So, in the end, probably a good decision.

What bothers me, though, is the comment that parking is somehow a no-no. I think the judges had enough on this infringer without that nonsense.

*

 

[alien51]

*
What bothers me, though, is the comment that parking is somehow a no-no. I think the judges had enough on this infringer without that nonsense.

I think that parking issue has been a crime at UDRP even in other previous cases. So this is not the first time.

There was also a mention, that the Respondent "offered" the domain to sell it to the TM owner. That's another UDRP crime, even in the past. The act of unsolicited "offering", has always been equated to bad faith.

 

[freedom30]

...all well and good, but I google veko and get Veko Technology as the first entry, There's also Veko Technics, Veko Travel, a Veko Ltd into wood processing ,Vekos all over the place.

TM infringer or not, it doesn't sound too kosher to me...

 

[alien51]

You can do "Veko T-shirts" or Veko Flower Shop, you're probably fine.

But this guy's "usage" may be dubious. He had advertising on his parking page pointing to the TM owner's products, he tried to sell the domain to the TM owner unsolicited, he had a history of cybersquatting on TM names, and he knew the TM owner exists that's why he squatted on the domain.

The thing with UDRPs, you get one strike on bad faith, and you're out.

 

[freedom30]

...The thing with UDRPs, you get one strike on bad faith, and you're out.

...ok, this guy's case notwithstanding, I have read some inexplicable judgements over the last year to question EVERYTHING that the "judge" or "judges" may decree and wonder where their bread is truly being buttered...

 

[alien51]

I believe you are referring to the "UDRP Wall Of Shame". You can google that search string.

 

[tonyk2000]

The panelist in this case (The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC) seems to be one of the most reasonable NAF/WIPO panelists. Many known attorneys representing domainers select him for 3-members panels. I beleive he recently denied a complaint based solely on a doctrine of laches - something that other panelists wouldn't do...

So the problem in this case is actually lack of response. Respondent did not respond. So the panelist MUST consider each and every phrase of the complaint as TRUE. Which indeed may not always be the case. I am not a lawyer, but a wise response in this case might be based on something like that the complainant - Netherlands-based Veko Lightsystems - is not trading in Korea, is unknown in Korea, the Respondent was not aware of them when he registered a 4-letter abbreviation. So the domain was not registered in bad faith.

See, for example, Craig Media, Inc. v. Kim Hyungho (WIPO Case No. D2004-0091) - “The fact that the Complainant ... is very well known in Canada does not mean that it is well known in Korea. The Complainant has produced no evidence to suggest why it should have been well known in Korea. The
Panel sees no reason why the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant and its A-Channel when he acquired the Domain Name.”

As for parking with some but not all links related to lightning: as per the Policy, Complainant must always provide a reason why the domain name was first REGISTERED in bad faith. Puky GmbH v. Ignatius Agnello (WIPO Case No. D2001-1345) - “if ... the Respondent’s intentions at the time of registration of the Domain Name were bona fide, no amount of subsequent bad faith behaviour by the Respondent can render the Complaint successful.”

 

[Dave_Z]

What bothers me, though, is the comment that parking is somehow a no-no. I think the judges had enough on this infringer without that nonsense.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html#26

Panels have generally recognized that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" [see also paragraph 3.8 below] or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder. As an example of such permissible use, where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and indeed consistent with recognized sources of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, provided there is no capitalization on trademark value (a result that PPC page operators can achieve by suppressing PPC advertising related to the trademark value of the word or phrase). By contrast, where such links are based on trademark value, UDRP panels have tended to consider such practices generally as unfair use resulting in misleading diversion.

It so happens the (determined) facts in this specific dispute don't exactly favor the respondent.

While I understand some people's (rather strong) feelings about this, there are at least two things to note about domain-trademark disputes:

1. For lack of a better term, there aren't exactly any "mechanical set of rules" (as John B once said) for things like this. It's not like where "if you do X, you get Y."

However other people insist on that, having such kinds of rules can work for or against you depending on your situation. Speaking of which:

2. Probably as a next best thing, what we have instead are "fact patterns" or situations with similar facts. That's one thing that overview I put above is for: to help make sense of seemingly unreasonable situations.

Note the overview above indicating that parking isn't generally bad (although it's unfortunate that some panelists believe it is, anyway). It gives scenarios where parking is bad, yet it also makes allowances.

Granted, no one is born knowing these things. It really takes time and reading to understand them.

I just happen to be passionately interested in it.

I see tonyk2000 also posted his thoughts. I completely agree with you there, and thanks for chiming in as well.

 

[Name Trader]

I have just been given a C&D for having my domain go to a For Sale page. The Trademark

G & S: coffee
Standard Character Claimed: (blank)
Mark Drawing Code: (4) Standard Character Mark
Trademark Search Facility Classification Code: CERTIFICATION-MARKS: Marks identified with a certain standard of quality
Other Data: The certification mark, as used by persons authorized by the certifier, certifies that the goods and/or services, comply with christian values.

Nowhere am I displaying ads or anything to do with coffee. I'd like to know what my chances are if it goes to UDRP?

 

[Day Dreamer]

It's changing. Not like it used to be in the 80's.

You should NOT point your names to sales sites. Build them out and have an email link that says:

If you have questions about this domain name please email [email protected].

Be smart, outsmart the haters.

 

[alien51]

So the problem in this case is actually lack of response. Respondent did not respond. So the panelist MUST consider each and every phrase of the complaint as TRUE.

I thought i have read in several WIPOs that every complaint must stand on its own merits. So the Panel cannot presume that every single Complaint as TRUE by Default.

I think there have been several cases where Complainant lost its case, WITHOUT any response from the Respondent. (Simply because the complaint had no legs: e.g. Reverse Hijacking attempt).

a wise response in this case might be based on something like that the complainant - Netherlands-based Veko Lightsystems - is not trading in Korea, is unknown in Korea, the Respondent was not aware of them when he registered a 4-letter abbreviation. So the domain was not registered in bad faith.

However, the Panelist did say: "The Panel notes that although Respondent appears to reside in Korea, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and UDRP precedent do not require that Complainant registers its mark in the country in which Respondent resides."

and even without the response, the evidence alone was "sufficient" to justify that "....the Panel finds on the totality of the evidence that on the balance of probabilities, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name".

I believe it would have been a predictable "standard defense" for any Respondent to claim that he had no knowledge of the TM given that the TM does not exist in Korea. But the Panelist insisted (as mentioned above), that a TM does not necessarily have to be existing in the residence country of the Respondent.

“if ... the Respondent’s intentions at the time of registration of the Domain Name were bona fide, no amount of subsequent bad faith behaviour by the Respondent can render the Complaint successful.”

The word "subsequent" here, could have been used to mean "subsequent" filing of a separate UDRP (after the first UDRP has been dismissed due to lack of merit). It doesn't mean subsequent offenses (in a series of offenses) under the same UDRP. complaint.

So if you were charged with say 5 offenses of bad faith, and you were found not guilty on all 5, then you can no longer be charged with the same complaints a second time. Something like double jeopardy.

 

[Name Trader]

It's changing. Not like it used to be in the 80's.

You should NOT point your names to sales sites. Build them out and have an email link that says:

If you have questions about this domain name please email [email protected].

Be smart, outsmart the haters.

So you are saying my chances are slim. Not because I'm infringing on their trademark, but because I'm using a For Sale page (which has nothing to do with their trademark, coffee)?

 

[DU]

So you are saying my chances are slim. Not because I'm infringing on their trademark, but because I'm using a For Sale page (which has nothing to do with their trademark, coffee)?

The answer would depend solely on your ability to defend the three principles:

1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2) The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
3) The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".

We can answer 1 with some degree of certainty. We can answer 2 with some degree of certainty. We can't answer 3 for you and it seems to vary on a case by case basis, but generally speaking just having the name for the purpose of selling can be deemed bad faith.

But the answer will always be - depends how well you can argue the three points.

 

[lennco]

but generally speaking just having the name for the purpose of selling can be deemed bad faith.

But the answer will always be - depends how well you can argue the three points.

I guess 99.9% of all domainers can be deemed of acting in bad faith, and the 11 million domains listed on Sedo are also in bad faith as well.

Just one way for some a@shole to perform Reverse Domain Hijacking.

:td: