Dominique
Established Member
- Impact
- 1,062
Good news for geo domains !
https://www.dndisputes.com/case/d2017-0985/
In summary:
"The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2006, and it reverts to a parking site.
Complainant admits that VERSAILLES "refers to a geographical term", but submits that Respondent is not making use of the name for legitimate descriptive purposes, since Respondent's associated website notes only that it is "currently being developed" and asks "interested in placing advertising?"".
"There is no evidence in this proceeding to suggest that Respondent was aware that Complainant owned, purported to own or ever asserted trademark rights in the name "Versailles" prior to the commencement of this Complaint".
"Certainly, it is safe to assume however that Respondent was aware of Versailles as a place; yet Complainant has failed to establish knowledge on the part of Respondent of Complainant's trademark rights in the term "Versailles"".
"The disputed domain name itself uses a first element "visit" as a prefix for "Versailles" which is entirely consistent with a descriptive use of a geographic name for a place, rather than the abusive use of a trademark".
"...Panel further notes that, in terms of demonstrable preparations, Respondent does operate an active tourism website at "www.visitsanmiguel.com", which provides travel information to visitors of San Miguel in Mexico and that at the bottom of such website Respondent includes the message "Visit our other sites", and links to websites referring to other geographical locations, such as "www.visitcuernavaca.com" and "visit-tahoe.com"".
"Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning".
"...Panel finds, based on the available evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with its descriptive meaning in mind rather than to target Complainant's trademark".
https://www.dndisputes.com/case/d2017-0985/
In summary:
"The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2006, and it reverts to a parking site.
Complainant admits that VERSAILLES "refers to a geographical term", but submits that Respondent is not making use of the name for legitimate descriptive purposes, since Respondent's associated website notes only that it is "currently being developed" and asks "interested in placing advertising?"".
"There is no evidence in this proceeding to suggest that Respondent was aware that Complainant owned, purported to own or ever asserted trademark rights in the name "Versailles" prior to the commencement of this Complaint".
"Certainly, it is safe to assume however that Respondent was aware of Versailles as a place; yet Complainant has failed to establish knowledge on the part of Respondent of Complainant's trademark rights in the term "Versailles"".
"The disputed domain name itself uses a first element "visit" as a prefix for "Versailles" which is entirely consistent with a descriptive use of a geographic name for a place, rather than the abusive use of a trademark".
"...Panel further notes that, in terms of demonstrable preparations, Respondent does operate an active tourism website at "www.visitsanmiguel.com", which provides travel information to visitors of San Miguel in Mexico and that at the bottom of such website Respondent includes the message "Visit our other sites", and links to websites referring to other geographical locations, such as "www.visitcuernavaca.com" and "visit-tahoe.com"".
"Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning".
"...Panel finds, based on the available evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with its descriptive meaning in mind rather than to target Complainant's trademark".
