Camilla.com has become the subject of a UDRP proceeding. The complaint was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the complainant is listed as Camilla Australia Pty Ltd. The UDRP is WIPO Case D2015-1593.
The Camilla.com domain name is owned by Mrs Jello, LLC, the company founded by Igal Lichtman, who passed away in 2013. It looks like Mrs. Jello LLC has owned Camilla.com for quite some time. In fact, Michael Berkens at TheDomains.com wrote about the sale of Camilla.com in May of 2009. The domain name sold at NameJet auction for $16,100. In the article, it was noted that “The second highest bidder went by the bidder id of camillacorp, which could have been the clothing company from Australia whose site is at camilla.com.au. If so they stopped bidding at $16K.”
Camilla is a popular name for girls, and it is listed on BabyCenter.com’s list of “Top 100 baby girl names” for 2014. In addition, the popularity of the Camilla name seems to be growing quite a bit, according to this chart found on BabyCenter.com.
Based on the complainant information listed in the WIPO database, I assume the complainant is the operator of the Camilla.com.au website. Camilla is the name of the designer, according to that website’s about us page.
This is not Mrs. Jello’s first UDRP proceeding since Igal’s passing, and I presume the company will be well represented. In fact, the company recently won a UDRP in June of 2015, successfully defending its right to own PAVO.com. The company was represented by Oshman & Mirisola, LLP in that proceeding.
Camilla.com is currently parked with an inquiry link. It will be interesting to learn if the complainant tried to acquire Camilla.com privately before filing a UDRP proceeding.
Update: The three-person UDRP panel ruled in favor of the complainant. The Internet Commerce Association published a statement in response to this UDRP decision. Subsequently, the company that owns this domain name filed a lawsuit to block the transfer of this domain name.
I see the domain is parked with ads … IMHO it’s always a bad idea when there is a TM risk … we know how ads algorithms work …
he knew better, people running his business now know better, If ads displayed were infringing what can you do besides pled ignorance? Believe it or not seen that as a defense a few times and it worked. So and so is handling my portfolio and they set the dns not us, please forgive us etc…worked!
Another industry leader (cyberqsquatter) being sued for TM infringement, the only disservice in this case is he’s not alive to feel the pain of the name being taken away.
“Another industry leader (cyberqsquatter) being sued for TM infringement”
If you are referring to this particular UDRP filing, your comment is wrong. This is a UDRP, not a lawsuit, so nobody is being “sued.”