Supremeruler.com UDRP, "Interesting" Ruling...

[Dave_Z]

Have a looksie:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0120.html

In all my years of PC and console gaming, I honestly don't believe I ever came
across the Supreme Ruler game. :D

Or maybe I did, but I never played it.

 

[Kenny]

Have a looksie:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0120.html

In all my years of PC and console gaming, I honestly don't believe I ever came
across the Supreme Ruler game. :D

Or maybe I did, but I never played it.

This is why he lost IMHO:

A majority of the Panel also accepts that the use of the domain name is in bad faith as defined by the Policy. The Respondent does not appear to have invested in the site, but rather uses the traffic to generate income with advertising links. That is, in and of itself, not objectionable, but when the bulk of that traffic appears to originate with the name of the Complainant’s computer game, the use is improper. The Respondent also fails to explain the change in domain name holders when this was expressly referred to by the Complainant as one of the difficulties that it faced in following up against the domain name holder.

 

[bluesman]

And so once again a guy was done in bigtime by his greed for those dinky little ads. And if even those few tiny ads on a godaddy type parked space bother you (and maybe they should, in these increasingly litigiously unsafe times), just pop up a script on a free site somewhere, redirect to it (many registrars do it for free) and html a page stating that your domain name site is under construction.

That way no lawyer anywhere can say you only bought the domain to make any of that awful filthy MONEY from ads - therefore they can do exactly NOTHING against you. So if you just wanted to grab cool names and figure out what to do with them much later (even years later), this is totally the way to go. It's not just cheap - it's FREE. And since there's no such thing as a time limit on how long a site can be under construction, if you want to you can just leave it that way FOREVER.

 

[labrocca]

It's a good ruling..a supreme ruling even!

 

[DNQuest.com]

That way no lawyer anywhere can say you only bought the domain to make any of that awful filthy MONEY from ads - therefore they can do exactly NOTHING against you. So if you just wanted to grab cool names and figure out what to do with them much later (even years later), this is totally the way to go. It's not just cheap - it's FREE. And since there's no such thing as a time limit on how long a site can be under construction, if you want to you can just leave it that way FOREVER.

One thing to watch out for is not establishing interest in a domain. If you read the decisions, many plaintiffs claims the domain owner does not have rights to the domain. By just having a single "under construction" page means you are not establing rights to the domain as opposed to an active, non-competing website.

 

[Flaresolutions]

That way no lawyer anywhere can say you only bought the domain to make any of that awful filthy MONEY from ads - therefore they can do exactly NOTHING against you. So if you just wanted to grab cool names and figure out what to do with them much later (even years later), this is totally the way to go. It's not just cheap - it's FREE. And since there's no such thing as a time limit on how long a site can be under construction, if you want to you can just leave it that way FOREVER.

The lawyer only has to prove you are cybersquatting on a trademarked/company name, it doesnt really matter if you are generating money at a certain stage in time. You could throw up ads one day and you are essentially making money off of someone elses property. And no.. im definite it is free to register nonprofit domains..

 

[bluesman]

...it doesnt really matter if you are generating money at a certain stage in time. You could throw up ads one day and you are essentially making money off of someone elses property...

Ya, it actually matters quite a lot if you make money on a disputed site. Read the decisions. They can also trace a site by its old cache pages in case some hustler tries to be slick and play peekaboo with ads. Therefore it does not become "someone else's property" unless they can prove crucial things like said money-making.

 

[Domainate.com]

God will email that gaming company a C&D eventually. "There is only one Supreme Ruler, and it is me, not you, mmmkay? Mmmkay..." Heheh. Interesting ruling.

 

[bluesman]

One thing to watch out for is not establishing interest in a domain. If you read the decisions, many plaintiffs claims the domain owner does not have rights to the domain. By just having a single "under construction" page means you are not establing rights to the domain as opposed to an active, non-competing website.

Hmmm... the first part of that sounds right, however the "UC" part doesn't answer to it. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of UC pages getting killed off in my files of old domain decisions. Over the years I've seen tons of UC pages regarding celeb names (ones unchanged for years), and WIPO basically never goes after them.

But there's a more glaring related issue than that here, and I'd like very much to get your and Dr. Berry's take on this - what about all those FAKE SEARCH ENGINE sites I've also seen over the years? They seem to violate just about every WIPO rule there is - not relevant to celeb subject, often helps competition, rarely changes or adds new content, has ads galore, etc., etc. - yet they always seem to be getting a free pass! What's going on there? How come THEY can get away with this jazz but we can't?

 

[DNQuest.com]

It is up to the TM holder to go after the domains. WIPO does not come after anyone, they just decide matters brought before them. If a celeb doesn't protect his TM and go after the domain, then a squatter is just sitting back and smiling... and collecting cash.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but again I quote the ruling. Above and beyond everything else, I believe this is why he lost.

A majority of the Panel also accepts that the use of the domain name is in bad faith as defined by the Policy. The Respondent does not appear to have invested in the site, but rather uses the traffic to generate income with advertising links. That is, in and of itself, not objectionable, but when the bulk of that traffic appears to originate with the name of the Complainant’s computer game, the use is improper.

DNQ, glad to see your back o/l :tu:

 

[bluesman]

Absolutely - the little guy in question DID screw up by using a popular name AND ads - just like pills and booze, nobody should ever mix the two. (I doubt there are any cases wherein WIPO took some guy's domain away when he wasn't using ads and was just trying to bolster his hit count as an empty ego thing.)

But let me repeat that I have still NEVER seen any decisions wherein WIPO has successfully gone after the BIG guys - the fake search engine guys. It's either a case of payola or total ignorance on WIPO's part - take your choice.

 

[DNQuest.com]

But let me repeat that I have still NEVER seen any decisions wherein WIPO has successfully gone after the BIG guys - the fake search engine guys. It's either a case of payola or total ignorance on WIPO's part - take your choice.

Before WIPO can do anything, it needs to be brought up to them. WIPO does not go after people, they are just an abitrator of cases brought before them. If a case isn't broguht before them, they can't make a decision. I would assume most cases of the "big boys" are handled before it goes to WIPO.

 

[bluesman]

That's kinda my point, though - NONE of these "big boy" company cases have been "handled," because they're very mysteriously never "brought up" to WIPO. And this is despite the fact that I've seen the exact SAME companies (and their clone buddies) using the SAME famous celebrity names for years on their fake search engine sites, from 1995 to the present. How could nobody notice all those sites? They're FAMOUS names!

Yet I've seen dozens of cases where one little indy guy steps out of line somewhere for a minute, and WHAM - he gets popped!

 

[DNQuest.com]

"mysteriously???" or maybe when a C+D arrives, the big boys just give up the name without a fight. So if the domain issue is resolved before it goes to WIPO, then there is no need to file. The celebrity could go to court, but all they care about is getting the name.

It is only the ones who don't respond or want to fight that goes to WIPO. If you read many celebrity decisions, the respondant does not show up, but the process must go on and all the procedures must be followed. So it seems they only go after the "little guys".

 

[bluesman]

Geez, I guess I'm not makin' my point clear enough yet. (Although I thought I was actually overdoin' it.)

The big boys (fake search engine guys) I'm referring to did NOT give up the names. They had 'em years ago, and still have 'em. So the celebs and/or companies that should have raised a fuss have done zip about it, and have NOT gotten "their" names "back".

This only shows (in additon to the fact that WIPO lets fake search engines get away with murder) that maybe such celebs/companies are starting to realize that their little registered "marks" - done after the fact of someone else registering related domain names previously - mean a whole lot LESS legally than they'd rather have us all scared into believing!

 

[DNQuest.com]

ok, show me a WIPO case that supports what you keep saying, I am very interested to read it.

 

[bluesman]

Amazingly, once gain you missed the point. (Or maybe more likely you're just putting me on, huh?) It's actually me that should be asking YOU to show me the WIPO cases that support your position!

My stance is of course that WIPO has NOT ever hit out at these obvious crooks. They crush the little guys all the time, who only violated one of the so-called rules. Yet the big company FSE (fake search engine) bums, of which there are hundreds, violate ALL the rules (and then some) but are never messed with!

I mean don't you think it looks awfully odd that random little guys here and there keep getting popped regularly, yet virtually not even ONE of hundreds of the FSEs has ever been touched? C'mon!

 

[DNQuest.com]

I did respond to that earlier in this thread. It is up to the TM holder to go after these guys. If the TM holder DOES NOT go after them, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. You keep blasting WIPO and the big man when in fact, it is the TM holder that keeps enabling the squatters. What you fail to see here, think of WIPO as a judge, do judges make arrests or find crooks? No, they don't, they judge what is brought before them.

I don't know what happened to you (you seem real angry about something), but there is a process in place. If someone would get a WIPO case against a big guy, they would go down too if they did the same thing as a lil guy. You have made many statements that WIPO is the reason why these names are still being controlled by the big guys. Please show me an example where a big guy was challenged over a TM name and won. I am not trying to argue with you, but you are blaming WIPO for these big guys to keep names and that WIPO does not go after these guys, that is not their place to do so. I guess that is why I am confused with your continued statements.