news UDRP FILED ON RCC.COM FROM ROYAL CARRIBEAN CRUISES

[EmpireNames.com]

Hi Npers.
While checking Udrpsearch.com i found royal carribean filed udrp on RCC.com
does it make sense?
I believe the case shouldnt be accepted but case is now active..

 

[jberryhill]

This should be a fairly simple one to defend, given the history of the domain name and the apparent lack of any association between "RCC" and the complainant. I've seen "RCC" used more often for Roman Catholic Church. The base term here has a huge Wikipedia disambiguation page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCC

 

[jberryhill]

so, could one conclude that a domain, which has been appropriately targeted using ppc to monetize it, can constitute legitimate usage, for a respondent in a UDRP
but using a "sales lander" is not considered "legitimate usage", in a defense for a respondent?

Correct, with one minor additional point below. I linked the cases above for a reason, since they all illustrate various fact patterns.

based on the cases for those 3 letter names, and perhaps all 3 letter com/net and even .org, domains....
that if not developing them -
then it's best to park it versus using a "sales lander".. as a means of protection or some assurance that it is being used "legitimately"?

As long as it is parked appropriately. That is typically one of two things.

One example of appropriate three letter domain parking is typified by <jdm.com>.

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1182

In the present case, the disputed domain name consists of a three letter acronym, which the evidence shows has a very wide range of potential associations and is in fact in use by numerous business other than the Complainant. The Respondent asserts without contradiction from the Complainant that “JDM” is commonly used as an abbreviation for “Japanese Domestic Market” in respect to automobiles and automobile parts, and submits evidence that all its use of the disputed domain name has been in connection with that market.

...

The Respondent also appears to use those domain names, even where offered for sale, for PPC links related to the subject matter associated with the descriptive term or if relevant, acronym.

...

Taking all these matters into account, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with the principles summarized in WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.10.2 and 2.9.

--------

Pretty simple. "JDM" is a generic acronym for Japanese Domestic Market which is the term used for auto parts and supplies for Japanese cars which are sold in Japan, and are exported by non-manufacturers, since the domestic distribution includes parts that are not manufactured for export.

The PPC lander is consistent with the generic meaning of the acronym.

I mean, this is not rocket science, it's the same thing as using a dictionary word to advertise goods and services for which that dictionary word is generic.

does using a "This Doman May Be For Sale" text banner or link on a ppc page, that is appropriately targeted, still fall within the legitimate usage parameter?

Selling something you legitimately own and use is not illegitimate. I don't understand the point of "may" be for sale. I've seen people do that, and the only thing I can think is "WTF is that supposed to mean?"

Is there someone who thinks that "selling domain names is bad, so if I use 'may be for sale' then it's not really for sale?"

Seriously, what is that "may" nonsense supposed to do for anyone?

No, there is nothing wrong with advertising that a domain name is for sale, in conjunction with monetizing that domain name for a subject for which it is a generic acronym.

In fact, one of the Uniregistry market landers is set up for that specific purpose: Shopping-Services:Personalization is a lander that is specifically designed for things like acronyms, monograms, etc., because pretty much any three letter combination is going to be valuable to someone as their personal initials, if nothing else.

Again, an example of the combined "acronym lander" and "for sale" link is discussed in the <dky.com> decision which I linked above, and please take a quick look at dky.com:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2015/d2015-1757.html

The Respondent is in the business of monetizing "generic" and three-letter domain names. As submitted by the Respondent, a number of previous panels have found that as long as this business is not infringing on a complainant's rights in a mark, the Policy allows registration and use of domain names for this purpose. See, e.g., R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc. v. Gregory Ricks / Whois Privacy Corp. / Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2014-2041.


... Although the website at the Disputed Domain Name is a PPC link page, the links currently (and historically) featured on that page are unspecific. They do not reference the Complainant or its competitors, or the construction industry or any similar industry. They do not attempt to trade off the Complainant's (nor do they appear to trade off a third party's) name or trade mark. There is no evidence to suggest that the Disputed Domain Name was registered with any knowledge of the Complainant.


Therefore, the Complainant does not succeed in establishing the second element of the Policy.

----------

Now, there are sales landers and there are sales landers.

Consider the case (also linked above) involving the sales lander used with <tnp.com>. On legitimate interest:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2017/d2017-0669.html

In light of the Panel’s findings under sections 6.A and 6.C, it is not necessary for the Panel to address this issue at any length. However, the Panel notes that in the section of its decision dealing with bad faith, it concludes that the Respondent “registered the disputed domain name for its inherent value as a three-letter domain name with numerous potential meanings without targeting the Complainant and its trademarks …” one of the indicia of a right or legitimate interest.

Well let's have a look at that sales lander:

Do you understand what I mean by "There are sales landers and there are sales landers"?

Read that copy on the sales lander.

If you have domain name that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, do you think it is worth a couple of minutes of your time to EXPLAIN WHY IT IS VALUABLE?

So, yes, a sales lander is fine, if you are going to use it to actually sell the domain name instead of taking an asset worth that much money and just slapping "for sale" on it. That's just asking for trouble.

Now, is this going to apply if the domain name is:

IBM.tld

BMW.tld

Probably not. Even with three letter combinations, there are ones which are famous trademarks and the way that some domainers come up with crap like Iowa's Beautiful Men, or Big Mean Women, as a mere pretext for registering things like IBM or BMW is, again, just plain dumb.

But when you take a name like RCC and plug it into Acronym Finder or Wikipedia, and can plainly see that it has a wide variety of meanings, with no one meaning being particularly prominent, then it is likewise obvious that the name has potential commercial value to many different parties, including businesses yet-to-be which would like to have a non-exclusive three-letter name.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I just dug that up fairly fast, I know it dragged on for years but if you ask the google god you will find it.
That was just the first article I found.

It was the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund.

 

[jberryhill]

The problem with this one was that both companies used the word FEDERATION in the name so it was inevitable that the wrestling company was on the losing end.

First off, the Wildlife and the Wrestling people never fought over a domain name. Because they both used "WWF" originally for different things, they had reached a contractual agreement as to what the parties could use those initials for. Because the Wrestling people eventually violated that agreement, they had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment - WWE. That had nothing to to with a domain name.

Later, well after the Wrestling people had abandoned the wwf.com domain name, the Wildlife people went after the domainer who had picked it up, not the Wrestling people:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v. Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks

Case No. D2006-0975

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International, (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, represented by Edwin Coe, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondents are:

(i) Moniker Online Services LLC, Florida, United States of America; and

(ii) Gregory Ricks, Texas, United States of America, represented by John B. Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq., United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed Domain Name <wwf.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.

--------------


If you are interested generally in three-letter name cases:

<wbw.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/98813.htm

<eaa.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/206309.htm

<toh.com>
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/651060.htm

<jdm.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1182

<tnp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0669

<dky.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-1757

<qlp.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case=D2013-1691

<usu.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0761.html

<don.net>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1373.html

<fcc.com>
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html

I will award bonus points to the first person who figures out two things that all of those three-letter name cases have in common.

 

[jberryhill]

I couldn't control the ads 100% on the parked pages and they showed ads that were related to cars, making it easy to find a registered and used in bad faith decision on those 2 domains. Because of this, I've only used For Sale landing pages since 2014.

Some parking systems do allow you to control the advertising categories.

Parking is a double-edged sword, since appropriately-targeted PPC use of a domain name can constitute a legitimate use under the second prong of the UDRP - which a "for sale" lander won't. Obviously, inappropriately-targeted PPC use is often the kiss of death. The attitude of some domainers that parking is "always bad" or even "always good" is a wee bit oversimplified.

No one has won more UDRP defenses than Name Administration Inc., and every one of the domain names in those proceedings was parked.

 

[BoothDomains]

Thank you all! Very happy with the decision!

 

[jberryhill]

I think UDRP panels used to dismiss complaints if there is pending court action, without making any findings on either of 3 elements. Maybe @jberryhill can enlighten us on this?

It's up to the panel. The UDRP leaves it up to the panel whether or not they want to issue a decision, even if a court case has been filed.

UDRP Rule 18:

Effect of Court Proceedings


(a) In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.

Gstaad.com is one of the cases I defended in which this was an issue. The Complainant filed the UDRP and then requested a delay in order to "pursue settlement". It wasn't much of a discussion, and they actually requested the delay in order to file a suit, and then came back saying they wanted to end the UDRP:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-2601

6.13 As is reflected in paragraph 4.15 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, although the Policy and issues of trade mark infringement significantly overlap, they are not the same thing. Therefore, in many cases it will be quite possible and proper for a panel to proceed to issue a decision in UDRP proceedings even if there are parallel court proceedings. Nevertheless, if there is a common factual dispute in both proceedings, it may be preferable that a panel leaves this matter to the courts, which are likely to be procedurally better equipped to determine that dispute than a panel appointed under the UDRP.


6.14 In the present case, the proceedings in the Swiss courts appear to involve claims of trade mark infringement by reason of the use of the Domain Name. However, it is far from clear what, if any, factual issues are in dispute between the parties. It is for a party who wants proceedings under the UDRP suspended or terminated because of parallel court proceedings to persuade a panel as to why this is necessary, if the parties are not in agreement that this is the right course of action. The Complainant has failed to persuade the Panel that termination would be appropriate in this case. In the circumstances, the Panel will proceed to a substantive decision.

 

[jberryhill]

Good. I know I’m making sense to me, but I’m never sure if I’m making sense to anyone else.

 

[MapleDots]

Update is
Claim Denied ..
@BoothDomains confirmed at linkedin
Congratz mate...

Can't wait to read the details (yipee!!!)

 

[Mr. Deleted]

RDNH

 

[Tristar]

Why dont they just buy the name...

Because some douchebag lawyer has convinced them to piss away money

If you want to see the worst look at NTP versus RIM . Instead of paying a couple mil for a license fee RIM decided to fight a patent . Rim lost multiple times, refused repeated extremely reasonable offers and then lost to the tune $612 million dollar . Apparently RIMs lawyers had booked over $100 Million in legals . Lawyers always win in a fight

 

[cipcip]

This UDRP procedure gives all the crap companies the right to take away your best domains. It's bull that you cannot have a 3 letter .com, as someone will say, no, it is my acronym, I want it... come on... RCC is a big acronym with over 200 meanings, check here: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RCC

I hope they will lose.

 

[EmpireNames.com]

Update is
Claim Denied ..
@BoothDomains confirmed at linkedin
Congratz mate...

 

[BaileyUK]

Just a generic Uniregistry lander. Even the biggest companies try to put their own interpretation on UDRP guidelines. I wonder just how many realize they have to satisfy all criteria and mistakenly believe just one will do. Guess their lawyer advised 'Well it is possible to win - Its happened before, by the way this is the estimate of my costs and as you can see it's approximately 15% of the sellers asking price'

 

[MadAboutDomains]

@MapleDots yes it's very different. WWE (was WWF) signed an agreement with WWF that restricted their use of the mark, they broke the terms of the agreement and it all fell apart with the supreme court in the UK siding with the World Wildlife Fund.

I think that the point that is being made here is that many companies and organisations use the initials RCC, so unless there is evidence to prove that the domain owner was targeting Royal Caribbean specifically, then it's easy to defend.

 

[EmpireNames.com]

sounds like royal carribean is ready for hallofshame.com

 

[dande]

So, no 3-letter domain is safe in fact. And Royal Carribean still has a chance, unfortunately. So, the respondent should better pay for 3-members panel, and carefully select panelists...

I'll never rely on UDRP panel to deliver good judgement. If I have a very important 3-L and someone comes for it, I'm heading to court.

 

[MapleDots]

I'll never rely on UDRP panel to deliver good judgement. If I have a very important 3-L and someone comes for it, I'm heading to court.

My sentiment exactly, you have no choice but cooperate with the UDRP process but should one lose a valuable .com then court is the next step. The whole France.com thing bothers me and I hope the ex owner of the domain pursues it in court.

 

[biggie]

Hi
just wanted to note these excerpts

Parking is a double-edged sword, since appropriately-targeted PPC use of a domain name can constitute a legitimate use under the second prong of the UDRP - which a "for sale" lander won't.

so, could one conclude that a domain, which has been appropriately targeted using ppc to monetize it, can constitute legitimate usage, for a respondent in a UDRP
but using a "sales lander" is not considered "legitimate usage", in a defense for a respondent?

Obviously, inappropriately-targeted PPC use is often the kiss of death. The attitude of some domainers that parking is "always bad" or even "always good" is a wee bit oversimplified.

I totally agree, as I always park first, then maybe do something later.

No one has won more UDRP defenses than Name Administration Inc., and every one of the domain names in those proceedings was parked.

so, would you say:
based on the cases for those 3 letter names, and perhaps all 3 letter com/net and even .org, domains....
that if not developing them -
then it's best to park it versus using a "sales lander".. as a means of protection or some assurance that it is being used "legitimately"?

and, if so:
does using a "This Doman May Be For Sale" text banner or link on a ppc page, that is appropriately targeted, still fall within the legitimate usage parameter?

Thanks

imo...

 

[biggie]

Do you understand what I mean by "There are sales landers and there are sales landers"?

yes, I can clearly see what you mean

thank you very much for your detailed and insightful replies

imo...

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Is setting up email on a domain that is for sale really a bad thing? It's your domain you can do what you want with it. It may be a step too far to use is as leverage to sell the name (It didn't appear to affect this case though), but to forward misdirected emails is helping the business in question not impeding it.

 

[MapleDots]

I own a domain (MBCanada(dot)com) for a car forum and and I used the info@ address for a little while. It was innocent enough until I started receiving corporate emails for Mercedes-Benz Canada. The very first thing I did was remove that address and change it to something else.

With the usa using MBUSA.com people naturally assumed canada was using info@mbcanada.

I took all the necessary steps to assure I would not lose in a possible UDRP. I was certainly not bold enough to forward the emails to Mercedes and ask them to buy the domain. Hell I knew they wanted it because they owned the .ca and I certainly was not going to risk my asset by doing something silly.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

No mention of a registered trademark for RCC by Royal Caribbean: https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/bookmark?s=ia6iltdiaceje2hjm8n359o832

Also, no mention of RCC on their website https://www.google.com/search?q=site:royalcaribbean.com++"rcc"

I suspect that this one could be rejected at the first element for not being Identical or confusingly similar.

 

[carob]

The base term here has a huge Wikipedia disambiguation page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCC

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_Cola