NameSilo

Interesting UDRP case found :kpark.com -lost

Labeled as discuss in Legal Discussion started by cfo, Oct 21, 2018.

Replies:
9
Views:
358

  1. cfo

    cfo Upgraded Member Blue Account

    Posts:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. JayT

    JayT Active Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    594
    complaint case too strong. Had trademark since 1989. defendant website not offering anything except coming soon and countdown. non english word, no apparent mainstream meaning for kpark other than complaint use as shown on google search results...just too many reasons. Had he had a website going that made more sense it would of been better.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  3. MadAboutDomains

    MadAboutDomains Active Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,663
    Likes Received:
    410
    Do you have any thoughts?

    ...and not replying to cease and desist letters being the main reason for a finding of bad faith.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  4. kam

    kam Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    350
    kpark.fr regged in 1997

    I believed kpark.com is a drop catch on Mar 2018

    kpark.fr decided not to participated in a drop-catch auction but go for UDRP:xf.laugh:
    Wow, that's a much cheaper option. :xf.cool:

    Anyway, I think the registered date played a important role here:ROFL:
    I would say It's unfair to the new owner bought it from an auction. The Panel should also considered it's indeed a drop catch and the registrant need time to build up their website.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  5. cfo

    cfo Upgraded Member Blue Account

    Posts:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    To prevail in an UDRP proceeding, the Complainant must establish the three elements? we all know that
    '
    In this case

    Unnecessary

    if a domain name like this one could be taken ,,how do we protect our domain names ?:zippermouth:
     
  6. JayT

    JayT Active Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    594
    The mark is confusingly similar.
    The defending says transliteration of a mythical animal in Chinese. Did he try and prove this? Even still, he had nothing to show of this intention. It could even be true, but the whole thing is far fetched and not good reasoning for 'fair use'. He goes though 3 stages of unrelated things. kpark - transliteration - mythical animal = startup thing? This is just too obscure and difficult to prove without a website in place.

    That's the bottom line, trademark is similar. Couldn't prove legitimate interest in domain kpark. He didn't have a site developed explaining his intention. It's easier to assume when presented with UDRP he went on defensive and made up this whole story about what his plans were.

    On top of all that the respondent wouldn't identify self, saying from china but being registered to usa. Said their email address is for collecting suggestions but that is total bull, having had it only 3 months and nothing on website asking to email suggestions. He was just shooting blanks, didn't help.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  7. kam

    kam Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    350
    If you search kpart in google. You would see there is a lot of company exactly named theirself kpart. I don't see the plaintiff had a valid reason to claimed the domain kpart. Their trademark is "K PAR K" and they already got K-PAR-K.COM.

    I think it's unfair for the new buyer and it's a steal.:xf.frown:
     
  8. JayT

    JayT Active Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    594
    Wtf are you talking about? Did you even read? It's KPARK.com also the text explains that a lot of other parties COULD have legit interest, giving specific examples even. I'm done here. you both are probably friends and this is OP's domain.

    I bet he didn't want to reveal identity because he has many domains he is cybersquating on just the same.
     
  9. kam

    kam Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    350
    I don't knew the OP.
    I just made the judgment based on my past experience and knowledge.
     
  10. MadAboutDomains

    MadAboutDomains Active Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2,663
    Likes Received:
    410
    It's quite simple. If someone disputes your domain, don't ignore the cease and desist letters, don't hide your identity from the UDRP panel, don't make up some bs story about how you already started developing the name but didn't really and don't assert that domain in question is simply a well known term when it isn't. Also don't register domains for a term that you can easily Google and find the company using the name already.

    I'm not sure why you think that they didn't establish all three elements. They did, just as with any other UDRP. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent and they couldn't prove legitimate interest and he acted in bad faith by how I've outlined above.
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:

Share This Page

Lysted
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...