Dynadot

UDRP MEZ.com hit with UDRP

NameSilo
Watch

Arpit131

Top Member
Impact
4,441
A UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization against the three letter MEZ.com domain name.

The registrant of Mez.com is located in India, and it appears that the registrant’s first name is Mez. The domain name is nearly 20 years old, with a registration date of December 1996. A DomainTools Historical Whois search shows that the domain name may have changed hands more than once in the last couple of years.

I don’t see any public record of a sale in NameBio. I searched through my Gmail records to see if this was offered for sale, and in July of 2015, Ryan Colby’s Outcome Brokerage mentioned MEZ.com without a price. MEZ.com is currently listed for sale on Afternic with a $75,000 purchase price. Obviously, MEZ.com is a valuable domain name and there is nothing wrong with selling domain names.

When I visited Mez.com today, there was no website resolving.

The complainant in this UDRP filing is listed as Georg Mez AG. A Google search for the company name brought me to this Bloomberg page without a whole lot of information about the company. There appear to be a ton of Google results for “Mez,” so I am not sure how the complainant will be able to prove all aspects of the UDRP in order to succeed.


Source
 
4
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
You never can tell.

Peace,
Cyberian
 
0
•••
Last edited:
7
•••
So (for honest domainers) this is the best way to avoid a RDNH?

Besides disproving the accusation of DN being "Identical or Confusingly Similar", it is unnecessary to consider the Rights or Legitimate Interests of the DN's registration & use ... if the complainant fails to prove the DN was Registered and Used in Bad Faith.

From my understanding, point 1 (Identical or Confusingly Similar), even if proven to be true, is not enough to win a UDRP. Avoid point 2 (Rights or Legitimate Interests) by ensuring point 3 (Registered and Used in Bad Faith) is impossible to prove. This can be achieved if a website-with-content (unrelated to an existing trademark) is setup on the DN asap, with no links and/or other forms of monetization implemented (especially relating to the products and/or services of the trademark owner(s)).

The experts are welcome to comment?
 
0
•••
UDRP decisions are so inconsistent, it's hard to know what to expect.
 
1
•••
Back