Cybersquatting

Cleveland Browns Win UDRP for Browns.com

In March, I reported that the Cleveland Browns had filed a UDRP for Browns.com, and the UDRP decision was released today. The single panelist, Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman,  found in favor of the Cleveland Browns, and the domain name will be transferred to the football team ownership, barring any litigation.

The  respondent, a resident of Italy, did not provide a response to the UDRP. This seems to have played a role in the decision as the panelist stated, “The Respondent has not offered any such refutation, or replied at all, and the Panel is not aware from the evidence of any means by which the Respondent could succeed under the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise, to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In my opinion, if the respondent doesn’t give a good reason for why he has a right to the domain name, I don’t think it should be expected for the panelist to find a reason on his own, especially in light of other information provided in the UDRP proceeding.

One piece of evidence that seriously doomed the respondent’s chances was the usage of the Wayback Machine, found at Archive.org. According to the decision, “In 2005, specific references and links appeared, to among other things, “Cleveland Browns”, “Cleveland Browns Tickets” and “National Football League”. By 2006, there were additional references to associated merchandise and to other football clubs, with similar content through 2009. The Complainant has produced evidence of content strongly impinging on its trademark and activities until January 4, 2011, interspersed with some periods of inactivity.

It should be noted that there is a way for domain owners to get archived information removed from Archive.org, but that’s a topic for another post. This is important in the event a domain owner purchases a name from someone who may have previously infringed on the rights of another company.

One interesting facet of the decision was that there was a name change in the Whois between the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. While some panelists may have used this information to say that it was a new registration and not consider the real registration date, which is bad for domain owners, this panelist provided some rationale for a possible Whois registrant contact change:

One possible interpretation of the facts of the present case is that the disputed domain name may have remained within the same entity, under the same guiding mind, before and after the registrant, administrative, technical and billing contacts were changed from “Gioacchino Zerbo” to “Andrea Denise Dinoia” on or before January 12, 2011; and therefore a new registration did not occur with that event.”

In my interpretation of the decision, the fact that there were football related links, specifically related to the complainant’s Cleveland Browns, coupled with the fact that the respondent didn’t respond to the UDRP, the panelist didn’t have much of a choice.

We’ll see if litigation is filed prior to the change of registrant, but it appears the Cleveland Browns will be able to move from ClevelandBrowns.com to Browns.com.

Report: Kate Middleton .com Domain Name Bought for Under $2,500

I read a report on TheProvince.com (a Canada-based website), this afternoon that said KateMiddleton.com was acquired by a Canadian couple for just $2,350. The domain name was originally registered in 2003, and the new owners have already launched a website on the site.

This has to be one of the better deals I’ve seen in a while, although generating revenue from it may prove to be difficult from a legal standpoint. Based on the content on the website, it seems that the couple is obviously targeting Kate Middleton, who is marrying Prince William in the “Royal Wedding” this Friday. Some day, it’s very likely that Kate Middleton will be Queen of England. There is no doubt that she is a famous person.

While many people have successfully defended owning domain names of famous people, there have been many that have lost. Generating revenue seems to be one of the ways a domain owner can risk losing a domain name via UDRP since it’s making money off of another person’s famous name. IP attorney Enrico Schaefer discussed this issue on his website a while back.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal expertise, but it would seem to me that it’s a risky proposition to have Google Adsense or other revenue generating links on this website (which it currently has). I know that making money is tempting, but to me, it doesn’t seem to be worth the risk, should the British government (or Kate Middleton) lay claim to this domain name. Not only is it a UDRP risk, but it may also be a financial risk as well.

Kate Middleton has been in the news for the last several months, and her name will continue to make news as she becomes a Princess. I think KateMiddleton.com is a great domain name, but monetizing it is a pretty big risk in my opinion.

WIPO Results: Typos VS. .CO

I want to point out two UDRP filings that were based on the same primary domain name but had different results. The first case involves a .CO domain name that matches an established .com website, and the second case involves several .com typos of the same .com domain name as the first case.

The former case involves a domain name that was recently registered, while the later involves domain names that were acquired prior to the complainant’s  acquisition. As you can see in the arguments below, the date of registration/acquisition was important in the panels’ findings.

A few weeks ago, a WIPO  UDRP decision awarded PokerStrategy.CO to the owner of PokerStrategy.com. The UDRP was defended by Raj Abhyanker, and    this case was decided by a single panelist. There were a few comments I found interesting in the discussion:

“Previous UDRP panels have found that where a domain name is purely descriptive, even where it is part of a registered trademark, then a respondent will have a right or legitimate interest, unless there is evidence that the respondent is targeting the complainant.”

“In this case the term “poker strategy” is comprised of two common English words and the combined term is purely descriptive and based on the evidence before the Panel is commonly used in the industry. Without more this would be enough to find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and to deny the Complaint. However as discussed below, there are supervening circumstances in this case which lead the Panel to infer, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has in this case sought to target the Complainant and that therefore the Respondent has not acted in good faith.”

“Based on the Respondent’s own acknowledgement of the success of the Complainant’s website at “www.pokerstrategy.com” and that the site had been in operation for a number of years prior to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel infers that the Complainant’s domain name has most likely developed some degree of source identifying significance, at least amongst the Internet based poker playing community.”

The second UDRP filing involves a number of domain names that would appear to be typos of PokerStrategy.com. The owner of PokerStrategy.com filed a UDRP for:  pokersrategy.com,  pokerstategy.com,  pokerstratgy.com,  pokerstrtegy.com, and  pokrstrategy.com. This UDRP was defended by John Berryhill, and there were three panelists who agreed on the findings.

There was some interesting discussion in this decision as well, and it seems that the date of the domain registration was critically important to this particular decision. Here are some findings and discussion:

“It may well be that in non-English speaking jurisdictions the relevant authorities were unaware that the term “Poker Strategy” was an unregistrable descriptive term referring, flatly, to poker strategy, but the United States Trademark Office had no such language difficulty.”

“UDRP Panels have repeatedly found that the use of common words and phrases utilized as domain names to advertise relevant subject matter is legitimate.”

“Here, the Complainant has taken the unusual approach of simply “wishing the facts away” by stating that it “assumes that Respondent has acquired the disputed domains well after the Complainant’s trademarks have been applied for.” This statement is false and is readily and demonstrably false, and was explained to the Complainant’s agents prior to this dispute, upon their attempt to acquire the disputed domain names on behalf of the Complainant. A printout of the WHOIS data for  as of the stated “Cache Date” of November 6, 2005 clearly demonstrates that the Respondent had been the identified registrant thereof well prior to the Complainant’s later purchase of the domain name.”

Congratulations are in order for John Berryhill, who was also able to get a reverse domain name hijacking decision since the complainant gave statements that:

were clearly designed to convey the impression that the Complainant itself had been using  for a website from 2002, before registration of the disputed domain names. Whereas the Complainant could hardly have been unaware of the fact that it had only acquired  in 2006.

One thing I learned from the first decision is that if you own .CO domain names, you need to use them if the .com is already established. Descriptive domain names are generally protected when it comes to UDRP, but if a panel thinks you registered a name to capitalize on an established website, you had better be using the domain name as it should be used based on its descriptive nature.

John Galliano is a Winner (with Video)

As you can see from the CBS News video embedded above, (Former) Dior designer John Galliano made news this past week for allegedly making anti-semitic remarks. There was also another video in which he allegedly said something about Hitler.

All of that aside, John Galliano was actually a winner this week. He may not have gained many fans, but he and his legal team did win a UDRP case for a ccTLD domain name: Galliano.fr (the decision is written in French).

According to my handy Google Translate tool, one argument Galliano and his legal team made was that “John Galliano is well known for being one of fashion’s most gifted of our time.” I am not that much into fashion so I can’t make a judgment about that, but I can say that Galliano is likely more well known this week than ever before, and that’s probably not a good thing.

The domain owner in this case did not submit a response to the UDRP, and the single panelist found in favor of Galliano.

***********

Please help me raise funds for the  Ronald McDonald House

American Idol Premiers: Let the CyberSquatting Begin

3

2011 American IdolSo American Idol had its 2011 premier tonight, and you know what that means… the unsavory practice of registering domain names related to AI contestants.

It seems that every year, as contestants perform in the preliminary rounds, some people speculate and purchase domain names of the contestants who have great (or horrible) performances. I am sure Go Daddy is buzzing right now with people trying to grab these names to strike cybersquatting gold.

Some of these domain names will  inevitably  end up on auction sites like Ebay, some may end up as fan sites, and most will drop, just as the competitors are culled during later rounds.

If you’ve purchased an American Idol contestant domain name, keep in mind that there aren’t a whole lot of things you can do with the domain name without infringing on the rights of the person whose name your domain name was named after. Face it, you registered it specifically to capitalize on that person’s image and reputation, and there is the potential for major legal damages in the Lanham Act.

Sure, you may be able to set up a fan site, but do you really want to go through the time and effort, when monetizing that could prove to be a legal challenge for you, especially if the contestant goes far and the Fox legal team comes after you?

PS: If you happen to be an American Idol contestant (or doing anything to become famous), you should obviously purchase your name in the .com if you can prior to your fame and notoriety.

Why I Think Groupon Needs Its Domain Names NOW

GrouponYou may have read that Groupon is fighting to get its Australian ccTLD domain name. It had offered to pay over a quarter of a million dollars for the domain name and a similar trademark filing. It seems a bit odd that a company would seemingly reward an alleged cybersquatter for this much money, but Groupon needs this (and similar) domain names ASAP.

Groupon is a rapidly growing company in a vertical that has very few barriers to entry. Local companies with the manpower and desire to pound the pavement can work with local businesses and start their own entities. As businesses go, this one is not too difficult to duplicate, although it isn’t easy to scale.

Groupon is in the phase where they are quickly growing around the world, be it with acquisitions of large enough competitors that they can enter markets rapidly, or by entering the market and becoming the dominant presence. Groupon is fast becoming known throughout the world as THE company that offers group deals.

In addition to using a universal .com domain name (Groupon.com), the company is embracing local ccTLDs. The company operates sites like Groupon.ca, Groupon.de, Groupon.com.mx, Groupon.co.uk, Groupon.es, Groupon.fr, Groupon.co.il, Groupon.jp, Groupon.cn, and many others, which are highly targeted.

With its rapid growth, the company probably doesn’t have the time to wait for the settlement of lawsuits or determination of UDRPs to get the domain names it wants to operate. Instead, the money is less important to this well funded company than the time it will take to get the domain name via UDRP and/or lawsuit.

It’s interesting to watch Groupon seemingly reward others for grabbing Groupon ccTLDs, but domain investors should note that this is an isolated situation, and doing so with other trademarks can be very risky and expensive to defend.

Recent Posts

Bodis Gives Performance Update After Google Parked Domain Opt-Out

3
Bodis sent an update to customers yesterday about recent performance impacts related to pay per click parking revenue. The company attributed the decline to...

Glad This Sale Wasn’t an LTO

0
Sometimes, the most obvious use for a particular domain name is in a manner that would either be offensive, controversial, or negative. This will...

Com Laude to Acquire MarkMonitor

3
Com Laude has built its reputation as a leading domain name management service and registrar for large corporations. The company competes against several other...

How I Quickly Check My Afternic Landing Pages

1
Last week, I added a couple of domain names to my Afternic account. Both domain names were won in GoDaddy expiry auctions and registered...

TonyNames Hits $100k Milestone with .io Sale

4
I've followed TonyNames on X for several years. Who is TonyNames? Honestly, I don't really know, but he has shared more than most people...