Labeled as discuss in Legal Discussion started by cfo, Oct 21, 2018.
any thoughts ?
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.
Do you have any thoughts?
...and not replying to cease and desist letters being the main reason for a finding of bad faith.
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
Wow, that's a much cheaper option.
Anyway, I think the registered date played a important role here
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.
To prevail in an UDRP proceeding, the Complainant must establish the three elements? we all know that
In this case
if a domain name like this one could be taken ,,how do we protect our domain names ?
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.
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.
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.
I don't knew the OP.
I just made the judgment based on my past experience and knowledge.
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.
Separate names with a comma.