A recent UDRP decision demonstrates that a variety of factors can make success uncertain where a brand owner’s asserted mark has arguably descriptive or generic meanings, where the junior user showed a good faith basis for use of the mark, and where the brand owner’s services are geographically limited.
Complainant Yonder, Inc. (“Yonder NC”) provides vacation home rental services in two areas of North Carolina under the registered mark YONDER. It conducted its business through the website. Respondent Yonder Global, Inc. (“Yonder Global”) provides online bookings for temporary lodgings and agricultural tourism. Yonder Global acquired the domain name on April 16, 2019, from which date it had continuously advertised its services. Yonder NC filed a UDRP complaint, alleging Yonder Global’s bad faith was shown by the fact it used the domain for services that directly competed with Yonder NC’s.
To prevail in a UDRP proceeding, a complainant must establish the following three elements: (1) the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark; (2) the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The case is Yonder Inc. v. Yonder Global, Inc. / Freyr Thor, Case No. FA1911001871167 NAF (Jan. 9, 2020).
read more (Mondaq)
Complainant Yonder, Inc. (“Yonder NC”) provides vacation home rental services in two areas of North Carolina under the registered mark YONDER. It conducted its business through the website. Respondent Yonder Global, Inc. (“Yonder Global”) provides online bookings for temporary lodgings and agricultural tourism. Yonder Global acquired the domain name on April 16, 2019, from which date it had continuously advertised its services. Yonder NC filed a UDRP complaint, alleging Yonder Global’s bad faith was shown by the fact it used the domain for services that directly competed with Yonder NC’s.
To prevail in a UDRP proceeding, a complainant must establish the following three elements: (1) the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark; (2) the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The case is Yonder Inc. v. Yonder Global, Inc. / Freyr Thor, Case No. FA1911001871167 NAF (Jan. 9, 2020).
read more (Mondaq)
