Wipo and .mobi

[okapi]

some questions:

-how much cost to start a wipo?

-if the domain requested is dropped, what happends?

-whois privacy and wipo: problems?

-any case of wipo and .mobi?

 

[fautebol]

You can check here to confirm that a procedure was introduced:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases/all.html

I'm also a newbie, but I guess it's difficult to give you options without knowing how much you don't want your name to appear in a dispute, why did you or could you have registered this name for, etc...

 

[Keith]

What is the name? Is it truely unique to the company that owns the other exts?

 

[okapi]

i forgot: if the domain is transfered, wipo can go on?

 

[Peter]

Hiding your whois is not a very wise idea as that forces the complainant to go straight to a WIPO which seems to have happened here.

If you are ready to give up the domain name I would suggest contacting the company who the domain infringes on and ask them if they initiated a WIPO and if so you would like to resolve the problem amicably with them (do not offer to sell it to them but it may be possible to ask to be reimbursed costs but that is something you will need to gauge when discussing with them).

It is possible they will drop the WIPO as it will be cheaper and easier to work it out amicably with you. Also the benefit is you will then not have a WIPO against you and you will not become known as a cyber squatter.

 

[okapi]

Thanks and rep added.


What do you think happens if domain will be deleted now?

 

[Peter]

As mentioned via pm conversation if you agree with the complainant that a transfer will take place (or a drop) then there is no reason for them to continue with a WIPO. The only powers available at a WIPO is for the domain to be transferred to the complainant.

If they wish to seek damages or anything else they would need to sue you.

Also I notice someone asking you the name of the domain name here on this thread. I would strongly advise against posting the name as they will use anything they can against you and threads like this are invaluable to them (although posts in this section of the forum are not indexed by search engines, it does not mean however that someone acting on their behalf will not find it).

 

[Keith]

As mentioned via pm conversation if you agree with the complainant that a transfer will take place (or a drop) then there is no reason for them to continue with a WIPO. The only powers available at a WIPO is for the domain to be transferred to the complainant.

If they wish to seek damages or anything else they would need to sue you.

Also I notice someone asking you the name of the domain name here on this thread. I would strongly advise against posting the name as they will use anything they can against you and threads like this are invaluable to them (although posts in this section of the forum are not indexed by search engines, it does not mean however that someone acting on their behalf will not find it).

At this point, what difference does it make if he posts the name? He already owns it and the company knows it and is taking action. A post revealing the name does nothing to fuel the situation. If anything, it gives others the chance to give specific advice on what the options are. What if it is a name that he may have rights to and someone can point that out after seeing the post? There is nothing wrong with seeking advice to better your decision on an issue like this.

 

[Peter]

At this point, what difference does it make if he posts the name? He already owns it and the company knows it and is taking action. A post revealing the name does nothing to fuel the situation. If anything, it gives others the chance to give specific advice on what the options are. What if it is a name that he may have rights to and someone can point that out after seeing the post? There is nothing wrong with seeking advice to better your decision on an issue like this.

If he discloses the name and someone working for the company finds posts related to it then they can use what he has said in those posts and potentially elsewhere against him.

 

[Keith]

If he discloses the name and someone working for the company finds posts related to it then they can use what he has said in those posts and potentially elsewhere against him.

I see your point but he is only seeking advice. It may be different if he posted the name trying to sell it. Seeking advice on something you have invested in can only help. He may have a right to keep the name but may not know if no one can give the proper help :imho: . Anyway, good luck to the op on this issue.

 

[Peter]

I see your point but he is only seeking advice. It may be different if he posted the name trying to sell it. Seeking advice on something you have invested in can only help. He may have a right to keep the name but may not know if no one can give the proper help :imho: . Anyway, good luck to the op on this issue.

Yes but in this post (although he has edited his posts now) he has already admitted that the domain was a trademark infringement. Regardless of whether he has any rights of use do you think the complainant bringing this quote up would do him any favours? Even if a comment is not in context they will try and use it against him.

 

[Keith]

Yes but in this post (although he has edited his posts now) he has already admitted that the domain was a trademark infringement. Regardless of whether he has any rights of use do you think the complainant bringing this quote up would do him any favours? Even if a comment is not in context they will try and use it against him.

The name may have a TM but it does not mean he is in the wrong to own it. He may just say he infringed because there is a valid TM on the name. Has the op used the name in a similar way as the company trying to obtain the name? Has he profited from this name in a way that would harm the TM company? He may have a right to the name and in that case he needs to know that. Please dont post that the name is Pepsi, Yahoo, or something obvious :hehe: .

 

[DNQuest.com]

What is the name? Is it truely unique to the company that owns the other exts?

Never ask for hte name if the OP does wish to initially include it (esp newbies). I think I told you that before. Publically naming a domain in these threads could be used against the domain holder if the other side happens to stumble across it. It is unprofessional and regardless of what your opinions are, it is always better to be safe than sorry, especially since it doens't involve you. If you feel you need to know the name and he won't give it up, then don't bother posting in that particular thread.

BTW- just becuase someone gives up the domain, it doess not release him liability and could still be sued under the ACPA. (Unless they give a written letter stating they release the domain registrant from liability.)

 

[IAmAllanShore]

-how much cost to start a wipo?

$1,300 - $1,500 for UDRP's depending on the forum (NAF vs. WIPO) in forum fees, then fees for any additional filings and subsequent events, then any attorney fees.

-whois privacy and wipo: problems?

I do not think I have seen the specific language that says "Whois privacy makes us more likely to find 'bad faith'"; however, they seem to be saying as much in their comments.

-any case of wipo and .mobi?
Yes.

NAF:
857652 magicjohnson.mobi June Bug Enterprises, Inc. v Terry Neal c/o LSC UDRP 3/29/2007 Transferred 5/2/2007
874575 ringostarr.mobi Richard Starkey v Mr. Bradley UDRP 1/3/2007 Transferred 2/12/2007
886516 ghosthunters.mobi - UDRP 1/17/2007 Withdrawn 3/26/2007
886529 dinersclub.mobi Diners Club International Ltd. v Mark de Jager aka M. de Jager UDRP 1/18/2007 Transferred 2/27/2007
893000 vanderbilt.mobi The Vanderbilt University v U Incorporated UDRP 1/23/2007 Transferred 2/19/2007
893427 abc7chicago.mobi American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v Merrill Sech UDRP 1/22/2007 Transferred 2/28/2007
893437 assurant.mobi Assurant, Inc. v Tom Baert UDRP 1/26/2007 Claim Denied 3/5/2007
894079 raytheon.mobi Raytheon Company v luciagao c/o lu ciagao UDRP 2/9/2007 Transferred 3/7/2007
903885 texasinstruments.mobi Texas Instruments Incorporated v Tom Baert UDRP 1/31/2007 Transferred 3/14/2007
917070 usnews.mobi U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v Lai Zhongqi UDRP 2/23/2007 Transferred 4/9/2007
933276 gwbakeries.mobi George Weston Bakeries Inc. v Charles McBroom UDRP 3/15/2007 Transferred 4/25/2007
934473 steviewonder.mobi - UDRP 3/14/2007 Withdrawn 5/17/2007
937022 hsabank.mobi Webster Financial Corporation v nianxin lin c/o NIAN XIN LIN UDRP 3/22/2007 Transferred 5/25/2007
944109 barnesandnoble.mobi - UDRP 3/28/2007 Withdrawn 4/19/2007
960178 eluxury.mobi eLuxury.com, Inc. v Mark Sandulli UDRP 4/24/2007 Transferred 6/7/2007
969594 standardandpoors.mobi McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v Minerva UDRP 5/1/2007 Transferred 5/30/2007
981369 websteronline.mobi - UDRP 5/21/2007 Withdrawn 6/25/2007

WIPO:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/domains_tld.jsp?tld=mobi

-Allan :gl: