Dynadot

news Qatar tourism council wins VisitQatar.com in cybersquatting dispute

Catch.Club

NickB

it's a mysteryTop Member
Impact
16,346
Last edited:
7
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.

Soofi

Love Domain NamesTop Member
Impact
5,700
This one's going to end up in court if @jberryhill and domain owner are a bit aggressive about it.
 
4
•••
... the Panel reaches the conclusion the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with a view to selling it at a substantial profit to the body responsible for promoting tourism in Qatar and which was already active under the “visitqatar” term on social media. He then proceeded cautiously and set about putting in place measures to legitimize the Disputed Domain Name and defend any UDRP proceeding. These included linking the Disputed Domain Name to a working (but rudimentary) travel related website and seeking a US trademark registration. He then thought it worthwhile to see if he could, with a cautious approach, elicit interest from the body in question and used intermediaries for that purpose.
(Quote end).

As per UDRP records, panelists Alistair Payne and Adam Taylor are definitely not biased. They saved a number of domains in cases where Respondents were genuine domainers. I would be happy to see either of them in any case involving my domains. I am not familiar with the decisions of the 3rd panelist, Nick J. Gardner - but, generally speaking, the panel looks 100% OK from domainer-respondents point of view.

So, it appears that the Respondent in this case represented himself both as a domainer (there was "outbound" marketing) and as an enduser (some non-parked and not "for sale" page, alleged ownership of travel agencies and legal entities in various countries, etc.). This alone is an unusual combination, must have been suspicious from Panelists point of view. Moreover, he hired @jberryhill - this selection might allow the Panel to assume that the respondent is in fact a domainer and not an enduser, and that he tries to hide this. Indeed, endusers in either position (Complainant or Respondent) would more frequently be represented by their local law firms and not by an attorney from another part of the globe.

So, the decision is natural. It is not the only case, and not the last UDRP case where the Panel first decides what should be "honest" from global or human point of view, and, with this feeling in mind they prepare formal written decision.

Just imho.

The last but not the least. Please, DO NOT, again, DO NOT "outbound" government agencies or government-owned companies. Any government. Any country. Even if you think that the country is "rich" (Middle East for example). An outcome of such an "outbound" may not necessary be pleasant.
 
Last edited:
7
•••

sharastar

Established Member
Impact
773
wow me too was Suprised @MrAcidic Thanks for this stuff.

I think a lot of 2 faced stuff from the Domainer with Outbounding did the Damage.The Panel must have felt that he (Concerned Domainer) was not honest from the beginning.

Indeed a very rare loss for our Winning Attorney @jberryhill .He would be the best person to throw light on this conversation of what exactly went wrong here for the Domainer with this Domain.
 
2
•••

NickB

it's a mysteryTop Member
Impact
16,346
Lesson learned here as @tonyk2000 posted don't outbound government agencies or countries. Not worth the risk by the look of it.
 
2
•••

Larion

Established Member
Impact
426
the domain-extension for the country of Qatar is not “.com” but “.qa

https://www.domains.qa/en


This strange UDRP-decision means big troubles ahead for ALL trademark-holders around the world.
Your trademark is literally worthless.


The country of Qatar does not hold a trademark for the term “Visit Qatar”.
The domain-owner indeed holds a registered trademark for the term “Visit Qatar”.



Good Luck :xf.wink:
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Impact
11,292
I would love to see this dissected in court, where proper arguments can be made with prior rulings.

The UDRP adjudicator will face a lot of heat also when their arguments don't much water.
 
3
•••

Larion

Established Member
Impact
426
Last edited:
0
•••

vikki88

Established Member
Impact
307
Thankyou for sharing :)
 
1
•••

Samer

Top Member
Impact
21,347
to the US Supreme Court.

i’m kidding!
 
Last edited:
1
•••

Charlesyeeck

New Member
Impact
0
100% sure all three panelists received bribe money from Qatar. That was the same way they paid off people to get the rights to host the next World Cup in the desert.
 
0
•••

Larion

Established Member
Impact
426
1
•••
Best wishes to the domain owner. He has some chances to win in the court. Imho, he should not complicate the things this time. In UDRP response, he provided too many evidence, like saying he is an owner of various companies / travel agencies in various countries, with 1 page homemade website, but he was also selling the domain in question through outbound at the same time. Looked fishy. So the udrp outcome was not too surprising. Lets see what the court finds...

Imho, the domain owner should now select who he is - domainer or enduser (not both at the same time), and act accordingly.

Somewhat related story:

In D2002-0754 WIPO case, Panelists Tony Willoughby, Gordon Harris and Milton Mueller not only refused to give newzealand.com to "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, in right of her Government in New Zealand, as Trustee for the Citizens, Organizations and State of New Zealand," but even declared her a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html

Will Qatar Royalty be the next proven domain name hijacker?
 
2
•••

xynames

XYNames.comTop Member
Impact
11,412
It again goes to prove that having ads or content on your page or not having ads or content on your page are not definitive proof of bad (or good) faith use of the domain. In this instance it was the very nature of the domain and the domainer’s intent in trying to sell it to the government agency that tipped the scales against him.
 
3
•••

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
7,207
Reversed in court in the Mutual Jurisdiction:

Screen Shot 2021-04-01 at 6.39.17 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • visit-qatar-non-cybersquatting.pdf
    169.6 KB · Views: 152
10
•••

sharfab

Top Member
Impact
1,925
Another court case in the "win" column.:xf.wink:
 
1
•••

coolhands

Top Member
Impact
489
0
•••

john888

Established Member
Impact
141
What is the cost of filed this lawsuit? Why even bother with the UDRP defense?
 
1
•••