I was looking through the recent UDRP filings at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and I saw that a UDRP was filed on MusicMaker.com. The case is WIPO Case D2015-1216, and the complainant is listed as MAGIX Software GmbH.
Whois records show that MusicMaker.com has a registration date of November 11, 1996. The current registrant of MusicMaker.com is listed as The Music Connection with a Virgina address. I did a historical Whois search using DomainTools, and the earliest Whois record the company has for this domain name is November of 2000, and the registrant is the same company that owns it today. I presume this company was also the registrant prior to 2000, but DomainTools doesn’t have archived records prior to this 2000 record.
At the time of publication, MusicMaker.com resolves to a default Network Solutions landing page for me.
It looks like the complainant has a music software product called Music Maker, and the company uses Music-Maker.com for its website. Interestingly, Music-Maker.com has a registration date of June 25, 1996. It would seem that the hyphenated domain name was created prior to the non-hyphenated version that is subject to the UDRP. A Whois history search shows that MAGIX was the registrant of Music-Maker.com many years ago. The oldest record archived by DomainTools is from 2001, and I would presume the company owned this domain name was the registrant prior to that.
I am very interested to read the details of this UDRP filing. I am curious why the complainant waited so long to file the UDRP. Perhaps that information will be revealed in the UDRP decision.
Seeing that it is a GmbH it means that it is a german/austrian/swiss company, hence it is not surprising that Music-Maker.com was registered by them instead of MusicMaker.com that early since here in the german speaking countries we do actually often prefer hyphenated domains..
there are several other examples where german companies have registered hyphenated domains in the early days of domaining while ignoring the non hyphenated ones..
The time has come to consider applying the theory of adverse possession to domains. If one is owned open and notoriously (ie with accurate WHOIS information) for over 7 years, the name should not be contestable. Period. Cases like this are an embarrassment to the UDRP process. While we’re at it, how about giving RDNH some teeth and impose fines, sanctions and attorney fees? Presently, a company has nothing to lose and much to gain.
I agree with Bob but only if sanctions would be in place the other way as well. For example in ADR cases for .BE domains, the fee charged for the procedure is € 1,750, which is paid by the complainant at the beginning of the procedure. If the Third-Party Decider rules that the complaint is justified, DNS Belgium will refund the total of the costs to the complainant. DNS Belgium will then claim this amount back from the previous, unlawful registrant. (Source: http://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/domain-name-legal-domain-name-disputes/adr-procedure)
The complaint was denied in a decision published today: