news Fresh Clothes LLC Attempted to get FreshClothes.com via the UDRP Process—What happened?

[News]

When you are a new company your choice of a brand might stumble across a domain that’s been registered already. In the case of Fresh Clothes LLC, the company formed in 2020, registering the mark FRESH CLOTHES. Meanwhile, the matching .com domain, FreshClothes.com, was registered in 2003.

Read More.

 

[draco]

There's no link to Read More.

 

[jberryhill]

There's no link to Read More.

Good.

I don't know who "news" is, but that user's "contributions" to Namepros consist of using Namepros as a link farm to other websites, blogs, etc..

There's nothing wrong with saying "hey, here's a interesting story I found, let's talk about" or whatever. But "news" is simply leveraging the Namepros readership to siphon traffic elsewhere for the benefit of other people, and not really participate in discussions on this site.

It's like walking into a restaurant to let people know that they can order pizza from Domino's.

So if Namepros has disabled their ability to do that, then good for Namepros. The constant spamming of the legal forum by "news" drowns out other discussions.

In any event, there was a fairly run-of-the-mill domain dispute over freshclothes.com, decided at the ADR Forum. The meat of the decision is:

https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2052912.htm

In light of the Panel’s dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of whether Complainant has rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) other than to note the well-established principle that neither a trade mark application, nor a registration with a United States state based authority, by themselves sufficiently confer a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

...

Registration and Use in Bad Faith
...

Respondent’s registration of the <freshclothes.com> domain name predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the FRESH CLOTHES mark, and thus Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use.

So, the Complainant walked in with a pending trademark application, trying to go after a senior domain name, and failed.