Tire Manufacturer Files Complaint for Nothing

[Brad|E]

Well, actually for zero (.) us. Here's the link:

Pirelli Files Complaint

Zouzas posted this story at another forum and granted me permission to spread the word. He's an ardent supporter of .us with an excellent portfolio.

Edit: Here's the operative part of the complaint (Source: boston.bizjournals.com):

"The zero.us domain name appropriates a common misspelling of complainant's zero and pzero marks in its entirety," reads the complaint. "In view of these circumstances, there is no reasonable possibility that the domain name was selected by (the) respondent for any purpose other than a brazen attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with (the) complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent's Web site."

Re the bold: Yes, of the 245,000,000 search results on Google for "zero", the most intuitive inference is the name is a mispelling of pzero. . This is Orwellian in scope, folks.

 

[Mark]

It amazes me to see some of the Dumb Complaints people file ....


Pirelli .... Get a life ~

 

[Dave_Z]

Domain Name Buyer Vs. Italian Tire Giant

Look who's on the news:

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/04/30/story6.html

Local domain name speculator Christian Zouzas is in a turf battle with Italian tire giant Pirelli & C. SpA, which claims that zero.us infringes on its flagship tire brand PZero.

Real estate attorney Zouzas, who moonlights as a cyberspace real estate tycoon, buys up generic domain names ending in .us by the dozen. His holdings include "actress.us" and "broadband.us."

Looks like you'll need to subscribe to get the full scoop.

Good luck.

 

[labrocca]

OMG...Pirelli must have some stupid lawyers.

 

[italiandragon]

I won`t be worried, Pirelli`s CEO does not even know what a .us is

 

[Jeffrey]

PZero and Zero? Confusingly similar? Yuck! Pirelli is confused!

 

[Dave_Z]

He he he, posted here actually:

http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues-and-disputes/321688-domain-name-buyer-vs-italian-tire.html

Merge, perhaps?

 

[Ronald Regging]

This has to be right up near the top of the list for stupidest reverse hijacking attempts... If they dont get slapped with a reverse hijacking fine on this one, someone needs to slap the panelist(s).

Good news is, it might bring a little bit more attention to .us

 

[tricolorro]

Domain Name Buyer Vs. Italian Tire Giant

This has to be right up near the top of the list for stupidest reverse hijacking attempts... If they dont get slapped with a reverse hijacking fine on this one, someone needs to slap the panelist(s).

Good news is, it might bring a little bit more attention to .us

"If they dont get slapped with a reverse hijacking fine..."

Hi,

This is clearly a case of "overreaching" and bad faith use of UDRP ...

... but unfortunately there is no fine or monetary punishment
against the Complainant if reverse Domain Hijacking is found
in an UDRP proceeding.

Under the (ACPA) Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
it would be a different story.

Patrick

It amazes me to see some of the Dumb Complaints people file ....

Hi,


It's one thing for a Complainant to file a "dumb" complaint but I
think it's even dumber that the NAB would allow this type of
absurd complaint to go forward.

In case anyone thinks it's not absurd, I offer this from the Complaint:

"Pirelli claims that zero.us is "identical or confusingly similar" to its "pzero" and "zero" trademarks..."

even worse and dumber:

"The zero.us domain name appropriates a common misspelling of complainant's zero and pzero marks in its entirety"

zero...is a misspelling of zero?

There really should be a stiff fine for misuse of NAB and UDRP filings.

Patrick

 

[duceman]

I would love to see Zouzas get a reverse hi-jacking case going. I don't think that there is a fine but at least it would make others think twice about trying.

I think this one is even worse then Adam's pig.com case

 

[Dave_Z]

I wonder why Pirelli went after Zouzas' .us instead of the .com. The .com was
decided via UDRP long ago.

Oh, 2 things may interest you: 1) Zouzas posted in another forum that he had
never received any C&D whatsoever, and 2) Dr. B's handling this for him.

 

[lazyleo]

Saddd they must be really bored :D

 

[Brad|E]

Oh, 2 things may interest you: 1) Zouzas posted in another forum that he had
never received any C&D whatsoever, and 2) Dr. B's handling this for him.

Thanks for the update, Dave. Duke addresses the complaint in his latest DN Journal newsletter:

DN Journal Newsletter

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I'd say their zero IQ attorneys have virtually zero chance of winning. I think their case will go down like a kamikaze flying a Japanese zero. Zero is a dictionary word, and they don't get much more generic than that.

I suppose they'll sue Coca Cola next for calling a product "zero" and making the package the same color as tires?
http://www.cocacolazero.com/

 

[Peter]

A wipo has in the past been made for zero.com by another organization which failed (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2000-0161.html)

In that case the wipo failed and the company DID have a registered trademark for that term.

In the zero.us case Pirelli do not have any hope of winning, they do not hold a trademark on the zero term.
_______________

 

[Dave_Z]

Update: Pirelli won the UDRP dispute for the .org:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/938092.htm

The respondent didn't reply to it.

Damn.

 

[labrocca]

See..and that's exactly what Pirelli was hoping. Too often people use incorrect whois information. Or when recieving a legal notice balk and just walk away. I am sure this is the case here. Pirelli is just going for it since they have zero to lose (hehe).

I believe a stiff penalty of 100k should be assessed for reverse-hijacking. That's the penalty for squatting. It should be the same for reverse hijacking.

 

[Peter]

The problem with this ruling is does it now set a precedence even though it was because the respondent did not respond.

I believe a stiff penalty of 100k should be assessed for reverse-hijacking. That's the penalty for squatting. It should be the same for reverse hijacking.

I totally agree

 

[labrocca]

Yes it sets a precedent...don't respond and lose your domain. That has been established already anyways though.

 

[Peter]

No I do not mean setting a precedence of losing a domain if you do not respond. What I mean is will pirelli try to use this to bolster future absurd claims in domains that contain the word zero.

Just as a side note the owner of the domain was aware of the complaint:-

http://masshightech.bizjournals.com...s/2007/04/30/story6.html?b=1177905600^1454454

I cannot understand why he did not represent himself (unless of course a deal had been made away from the public gaze)