Typically, when a well-known company goes after an exact match domain name in alternative extensions, it is not all that newsworthy. More often than not, the domain names are awarded to the complainant without much fanfare. It looks like the Washington Post filed two UDRPs that will be interesting to follow given the usage of the domain name.
A UDRP was filed against WashingtonPost.news and a UDRP was filed against WAPO.news. Both filings were at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), so the complainant is not published yet. One can assume the Washington Post is the complainant in case #1775737 and case #1775738.
While these may look somewhat cut and dry given the pretty much exact match of a well known news publication brand, the way they are being used could make these UDRP filings more notable. It looks like there is a website on each of these domain names, and it is pretty clear that neither is associated with the Washington Post.
One look at the header / logo on these two websites, and visitors should be able to tell there is no association. “Real news about the fake news failures of the Washington Post” is the tagline under a logo with the domain name. In addition to this, on the top right section of the websites, it says “This website is NOT associated with or endorsed by the Washington Post newspaper.”
The complainant in a UDRP will need to prove that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The complainant also needs to prove that the domain name is confusingly similar. With active lampoon-esque parody websites in place, it will be interesting to see if the UDRP panels rule in favor of the complainant and award the domain name to them. I will be keeping an eye on these two UDRP filings.
Update: The Washington Post won its WAPO.news UDRP. The WashingtonPost.news UDRP has not yet been published.
Interesting. How does a newspaper fail to register the only new Gs that could potentially injure their business. Especially Bezos so tech savvy.
The parody site is very well done. Domain owner should win but Bezos very powerful. Think owner made a mistake registering WAPO news as well and putting up same content. Think this could potentially be spun as bad faith. One site ok but two sites kind of pushing it imo.
Agree. Not so clear-cut. Trademark rights versus free speech.
Not that I have any say in the matter but I’m inclined to side with the domain owner’s right to use the domains to criticize the Washington Post. He’s not really impersonating them. So unless he’s holding the domain ransom, he’s using the domain in a legitimate way.
Clearly he’s targeting the Washington Post and exploiting their brand name to their detriment. But that’s what many gripe sites do with domain names. Negative articles use headlines and books use titles that cite the name of the person or organization they’re criticizing. So why not allow the same with the “titles” of websites i.e. domain names?
The Washington Post missed the boat by not registering these domains. And they should accept the consequences.
Of course, the content this person is publishing is garbage. But he has the right to write nonsense. Realistically, is the Washington Post going to suffer any damage from the rabid, conspiracy-theory-driven dreck this guy is publishing? Nobody who reads what he writes will change their opinion about real journalism.
This should be on every page and it should be bold, and potentially larger. “This website is NOT associated with or endorsed by the Washington Post newspaper” and not just on the home page. However, the domain owner will probably loose this case. Not creative, clever or properly done parody; ads all over the place, too many reasons to loose. http://lottfischer.com/general.php?category=Resources&headline=Trademark+Parody&subhead=Articles