Twiiter . com sold for $16,999 on DropCatch - UDRP waiting to happen?

[draco]

Twiiter . com sold for $16,999 on DropCatch today. There were 104 bids. Is it just me, or is that a waste of money and a UDRP waiting to happen?

 

[etiqdom]

Instagram is already a fictional word. You cannot defend "Lnstagrarn" from any point.

However, any common dictionary word can be used with intentional misspelling.

If we were to go by your logic, 300 registered companies with the name "move" should have already filed a lawsuit against 200 registered companies using the "moov" brand.

Not hundrends, thousands, Kor. More than 4 000 cases for Apple only so far. Guess, who won most of them.

See Apple vs. Appl.com case as an example of not my logic, but a policy you still seem to not get.

 

[kor]

See Apple vs. Appl.com case as an example of not my logic, but a policy you still seem to not get.

According to Complainant it registered the disputed domain name in May 2005, since which time it has been used as a pay-per-click page, with hyperlinks to many products, including those of Complainant.

That's a big no-no.

 

[Peter45]

Peter, you miss my points, Sir

Yes I did.
I first replied to this statement of yours

It doesn't matter if the TM is invented or a dictionary word

and then I highjacked myself into discussing the dictionary word twitter instead of twiiter.
My bad

 

[Peter45]

That said, the Instagram vs. Lnstagrarn WIPO case you point to, doesn't support your contention

Yes, UDRP is inevitable here. There's no "good faith" you can invent to justify such an "investment".

whereas your contention - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that not only the UDRP but also the Respondent defeat is inevitable, precisely because of that particular domain name.


From the panel's findings (among others):

a) "The Disputed Domain Name ... does not resolve to an active website."
b) "Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name."
c) "the failure of Respondent to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use."

These circumstances were substantial in justifying the panel's decision.
Which means, you can't be sure that with different circumstances the panel would had taken the same decision.

What if Respondent had put up a website selling Lstagrarn bananas?
What if Respondent had put on sale that domain?
What if Respondent had taken the time to submit a response?


Your pinpointing the reason for the decision only on the domain name - leaving aside those circumstances - is arbitrary.

Your definition of twiiter as typo squatting irrespective of how the Registrant uses it, is arbitrary.

You can't rule out the chance that if that Respondent had put up some non-Instagram related website, and/or put the domain on sale, and/or taken the time to respond (among others) maybe he could win that case.



In registering Lnstagrarn or twiiter neither a URDP nor a Registrant's defeat are inevitable.
It depends on the circumstances i.e. on the Registrant's usage of that domain.

 

[Peter45]

Not hundrends, thousands, Kor. More than 4 000 cases for Apple only so far. Guess, who won most of them.

Exactly. Most of them. Not all.
A Registrant's defeat is not inevitable

See Apple vs. Appl.com case as an example of not my logic, but a policy you still seem to not get.

I don't know.
To me it looks like kor gets the policy pretty good!

 

[etiqdom]

Peter, you still miss, Sir. The domain Twiiter[.]com is already developed in bad faith with ads. Please read again my answer (and the whole thread attentively) from the 6th of June.