UDRP Case

Michael Berkins reports:

A one member WIPO panel just awarded the domain name to the Trademark Holder.

While we usually post the relevant facts and findings by the panel this case can be summed up citing this finding of the panel:

“”This case ultimately turns on the quality of Respondent’s evidence.”

“In this regard, however, the Panel notes Respondent has not submitted any evidence that it has established a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. In the end, this lack of evidence proves fatal for Respondent.

“While the attorney for Respondent does allege that Respondent has plans to create a criticism site at “” this assertion is not evidence because attorney argument is not evidence. ”

“In this context, the Panel is forced to question the accuracy of Respondent’s assertion. If Respondent did indeed have a legitimate intent to create a criticism site, then the Panel believes Respondent most likely had documentary evidence detailing the preparation of the site and could have submitted these documents as evidence in support of its allegation. On the other hand, the fact Respondent did not submit any evidence on this point tends to undermine Respondent’s assertion.”

“Respondent also asserts that it chose to rely on the concerned registrar to create a “parked” website while it developed its criticism site, and that it receives no monetary benefit from click-through opportunities, despite the fact the “parked” website contains click-through options. ”

“The Panel notes it is impossible to determine whether this assertion is correct because no evidence has been submitted to verify this claim.”

“However, even assuming the assertion is correct, and Respondent never had an intent to secure commercial gain from the domain name, the “parked” website remains a commercial website with click-through opportunities to existing businesses and is not a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name despite the lack of monetary enrichment to Respondent.”

“As such, the “parked” website does not establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name.”

Bottom line if you own a “sucks” domain of a famous brand you better use it as intended by putting some content on it and using it as a grip site.

Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
General Information

All registrars must follow the the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (often referred to as the “UDRP”). Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

To invoke the policy, a trademark owner should either (a) file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder (or where appropriate an in-rem action concerning the domain name) or (b) in cases of abusive registration submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider (see below for a list and links).